bpf.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
To: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>, <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>, <kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf 1/2] bpf: fix a verifier issue when assigning 32bit reg states to 64bit ones
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 14:58:54 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <74b999c8-5e0b-7d82-8f45-83813f5b20fc@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5ed02d7214c39_1fea2b263a20e5b435@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch>



On 5/28/20 2:30 PM, John Fastabend wrote:
> Yonghong Song wrote:
>> With the latest trunk llvm (llvm 11), I hit a verifier issue for
>> test_prog subtest test_verif_scale1.
>>
>> The following simplified example illustrate the issue:
>>      w9 = 0  /* R9_w=inv0 */
>>      r8 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 80)  /* __sk_buff->data_end */
>>      r7 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 76)  /* __sk_buff->data */
>>      ......
>>      w2 = w9 /* R2_w=inv0 */
>>      r6 = r7 /* R6_w=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=0,imm=0) */
>>      r6 += r2 /* R6_w=inv(id=0) */
>>      r3 = r6 /* R3_w=inv(id=0) */
>>      r3 += 14 /* R3_w=inv(id=0) */
>>      if r3 > r8 goto end
>>      r5 = *(u32 *)(r6 + 0) /* R6_w=inv(id=0) */
>>         <== error here: R6 invalid mem access 'inv'
>>      ...
>>    end:
>>
>> In real test_verif_scale1 code, "w9 = 0" and "w2 = w9" are in
>> different basic blocks.
>>
>> In the above, after "r6 += r2", r6 becomes a scalar, which eventually
>> caused the memory access error. The correct register state should be
>> a pkt pointer.
>>
>> The inprecise register state starts at "w2 = w9".
>> The 32bit register w9 is 0, in __reg_assign_32_into_64(),
>> the 64bit reg->smax_value is assigned to be U32_MAX.
>> The 64bit reg->smin_value is 0 and the 64bit register
>> itself remains constant based on reg->var_off.
>>
>> In adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(), the verifier checks for a known constant,
>> smin_val must be equal to smax_val. Since they are not equal,
>> the verifier decides r6 is a unknown scalar, which caused later failure.
>>
>> The llvm10 does not have this issue as it generates different code:
>>      w9 = 0  /* R9_w=inv0 */
>>      r8 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 80)  /* __sk_buff->data_end */
>>      r7 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 76)  /* __sk_buff->data */
>>      ......
>>      r6 = r7 /* R6_w=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=0,imm=0) */
>>      r6 += r9 /* R6_w=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=0,imm=0) */
>>      r3 = r6 /* R3_w=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=0,imm=0) */
>>      r3 += 14 /* R3_w=pkt(id=0,off=14,r=0,imm=0) */
>>      if r3 > r8 goto end
>>      ...
>>
>> To fix the issue, if 32bit register is a const 0,
>> then just assign max vaue 0 to 64bit register smax_value as well.
>>
>> Fixes: 3f50f132d840 ("bpf: Verifier, do explicit ALU32 bounds tracking")
>> Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
>> ---
>>   kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 3 +++
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> index 8d7ee40e2748..5123ce54695f 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> @@ -1174,6 +1174,9 @@ static void __reg_assign_32_into_64(struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
>>   		reg->smin_value = 0;
>>   	if (reg->s32_max_value > 0)
>>   		reg->smax_value = reg->s32_max_value;
>> +	else if (reg->s32_max_value == 0 && reg->s32_min_value == 0 &&
>> +		 tnum_is_const(reg->var_off))
>> +		reg->smax_value = 0; /* const 0 */
>>   	else
>>   		reg->smax_value = U32_MAX;
>>   }
>> -- 
>> 2.24.1
>>
> 
> How about the following, I think it will also cover the case above. We should be
> checking 'smin_value > 0' as well I believe.
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index b3d2590..80d22de 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -1217,14 +1217,14 @@ static void __reg_assign_32_into_64(struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
>           * but must be positive otherwise set to worse case bounds
>           * and refine later from tnum.
>           */
> +       if (reg->s32_min_value >= 0 && reg->s32_max_value >= 0)

I agree that s32_min_value needs to be checked. Otherwise, a negative
s32_min_value, not sure how to derive reg->smax_value....

> +               reg->smax_value = reg->s32_max_value;
> +       else
> +               reg->smax_value = U32_MAX;
>          if (reg->s32_min_value > 0)
>                  reg->smin_value = reg->s32_min_value;
>          else
>                  reg->smin_value = 0;
> -       if (reg->s32_min_value >= 0 && reg->s32_max_value > 0)
> -               reg->smax_value = reg->s32_max_value;
> -       else
> -               reg->smax_value = U32_MAX;
>   }
> 
> This causes selftests failure I pasted it at the end of the email. By my
> analysis what happens here is after line 10 we get different bounds
> and this falls out so that we just miss triggering the failure case in
> check_reg_sane_offset()
> 
>          if (smin >= BPF_MAX_VAR_OFF || smin <= -BPF_MAX_VAR_OFF) {
>                  verbose(env, "value %lld makes %s pointer be out of bounds\n",
>                          smin, reg_type_str[type]);
>                  return false;
>          }
> 
> 
> However (would need to check, improve verifier test) that should still
> fail as soon as its read. WDYT? I can try to roll it into your test if

Which read, you mean r0 += r1? Yes, r1 range seems pretty big,
R1_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=72057594037927935,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffffffffff))
so a failure should be right, I guess.

> you want or if you have time go for it. Let me know.

Since this is a little more involved and you are more familiar with
the code, please go ahead to make the change.

Thanks!

> 
> # ./test_verifier -v 66
> #66/p bounds check after truncation of boundary-crossing range (2) FAIL
> Unexpected success to load!
> func#0 @0
> 0: R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0
> 0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0
> 1: R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
> 1: (bf) r2 = r10
> 2: R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2_w=fp0 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
> 2: (07) r2 += -8
> 3: R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2_w=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
> 3: (18) r1 = 0xffff8883dba1e800
> 5: R1_w=map_ptr(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R2_w=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
> 5: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1
> 6: R0_w=map_value_or_null(id=1,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
> 6: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+9
>   R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
> 7: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
> 7: (71) r1 = *(u8 *)(r0 +0)
>   R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
> 8: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=255,var_off=(0x0; 0xff)) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
> 8: (07) r1 += 2147483584
> 9: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=inv(id=0,umin_value=2147483584,umax_value=2147483839,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
> 9: (07) r1 += 2147483584
> 10: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=inv(id=0,umin_value=4294967168,umax_value=4294967423,var_off=(0x0; 0x1ffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
> 10: (bc) w1 = w1
> 11: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
> 11: (17) r1 -= 2147483584
> 12: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=inv(id=0,smin_value=-2147483584,smax_value=2147483711) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
> 12: (17) r1 -= 2147483584
> 13: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=inv(id=0,smin_value=-4294967168,smax_value=127) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
> 13: (77) r1 >>= 8
> 14: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=72057594037927935,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
> 14: (0f) r0 += r1
> last_idx 14 first_idx 0
> regs=2 stack=0 before 13: (77) r1 >>= 8
> regs=2 stack=0 before 12: (17) r1 -= 2147483584
> regs=2 stack=0 before 11: (17) r1 -= 2147483584
> regs=2 stack=0 before 10: (bc) w1 = w1
> regs=2 stack=0 before 9: (07) r1 += 2147483584
> regs=2 stack=0 before 8: (07) r1 += 2147483584
> regs=2 stack=0 before 7: (71) r1 = *(u8 *)(r0 +0)
> 15: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,umax_value=72057594037927935,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffffffffff)) R1_w=invP(id=0,umax_value=72057594037927935,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
> 15: (b7) r0 = 0
> 16: R0=inv0 R1=invP(id=0,umax_value=72057594037927935,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmmmmmm
> 16: (95) exit
> 
> from 6 to 16: safe
> processed 17 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 1 peak_states 1 mark_read 1
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2020-05-28 22:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-05-28 16:50 [PATCH bpf 0/2] " Yonghong Song
2020-05-28 16:50 ` [PATCH bpf 1/2] " Yonghong Song
2020-05-28 20:36   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-05-28 21:22     ` Yonghong Song
2020-05-28 21:30   ` John Fastabend
2020-05-28 21:58     ` Yonghong Song [this message]
2020-05-28 16:50 ` [PATCH bpf 2/2] tools/bpf: add a verifier test for " Yonghong Song

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=74b999c8-5e0b-7d82-8f45-83813f5b20fc@fb.com \
    --to=yhs@fb.com \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH bpf 1/2] bpf: fix a verifier issue when assigning 32bit reg states to 64bit ones' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).