From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBE91C48BDF for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 23:01:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mother.openwall.net (mother.openwall.net [195.42.179.200]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B7E9761055 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 23:01:52 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B7E9761055 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kernel-hardening-return-21312-kernel-hardening=archiver.kernel.org@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 26402 invoked by uid 550); 15 Jun 2021 23:01:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact kernel-hardening-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Received: (qmail 20225 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2021 22:45:05 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=cc:to:from:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:subject; bh=yAsKDxu4OsJzll8QC5S0Yfmf14kqjw1ys0j1yn9M9SA=; b=HS0GT+xpHXhIKqjwQv9QddnB8DnaaY421+5pdBr2Y0YekywQ+WjECT1LtO5VxGjLkU FXXVSEnPu2QAu2ACeEoiFOFFkXTmjPkWkhzQjGoBjHxi3h+F+uoLhWigpA2J2Dp0ph24 JqSADk1f8oJaQcVtxqRuXmybcTSfflC/NRZVxuVMrEe6y3TTGIYHCZo+0GCtmF7SXzMx o4IEvD5W1C1WONjEUEJLXUm9joNBBb1/0xlKRk4GdCacQPQ+dcNz/5bCsel3BkPzXe1u +MoM0Fum5vjnBFjXNsxQ8pNiOKnRNK2TpMz6fU89cEiJQ31nvqVaeK4ovKedFbTgjnpK NDOw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:cc:to:from:message-id:in-reply-to:references :date:subject; bh=yAsKDxu4OsJzll8QC5S0Yfmf14kqjw1ys0j1yn9M9SA=; b=APT+ZVxkkoEwaGrXb6BRgXcnEcDdYIyx4Eite2J+HwUsWgqhH+N/XwoQCVTbREhWN/ NyzIKY/AstLEte0R2oPqWVhhIEwOJU/neUj7InP0kbT8TRQ/TVjrfb00E6hdA4hi5Il1 ENwdYEk3dFLmmo5kosTKsw6lRO6aOx8iI0WMxUZ1h87E1gSaJAw5bHOCpaZlfopBlxA4 kQRL64UPIQBlKV7jvVWZr7hNPXpdh8pu3s2lRT272qk7KPZKDYTJaQfRnbwnhfYeKMDZ 58WVPI8/Xo+ASdw6+48vqDM6eOysa/al83IEB/b+kdHkaT2BqIApb9K4i3DpVtK7oXFi WhNw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532xtGKMg16ePErpnAzMx2+n8D8jCTbGi4gno77BoTSA7l9ZbU9t ctxg8GvlbOIw5kcuHZEO9kk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw/LSBqzOKIGod9rqRZwOqq4UUUOiHo8kr0tNW8SdyA1B5cSD8VfYghOxDTxcnfghCL1uiXaQ== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:5585:: with SMTP id i5mr1483433wrv.371.1623797093202; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:44:53 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ecree.xilinx@gmail.com, syzbot+bed360704c521841c85d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com, keescook@chromium.org, yhs@fb.com, dvyukov@google.com, andrii@kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, hawk@kernel.org, john.fastabend@gmail.com, kafai@fb.com, kpsingh@kernel.org, kuba@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, songliubraving@fb.com, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, nathan@kernel.org, ndesaulniers@google.com, clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com To: ebiggers@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net From: "Kurt Manucredo" Message-ID: <31138-26823-curtm@phaethon> In-Reply-To: References: <1aaa2408-94b9-a1e6-beff-7523b66fe73d@fb.com> <202106101002.DF8C7EF@keescook> <85536-177443-curtm@phaethon> <4713f6e9-2cfb-e2a6-c42d-b2a62f035bf2@iogearbox.net> Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 00:31:49 +0200 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] bpf: core: fix shift-out-of-bounds in ___bpf_prog_run On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:07:43 -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 11:54:41PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > On 6/15/21 11:38 PM, Eric Biggers wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 02:32:18PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 11:08:18PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > > > > On 6/15/21 9:33 PM, Eric Biggers wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 07:51:07PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I understand it, the UBSAN report is coming from the eBPF interpreter, > > > > > > > which is the *slow path* and indeed on many production systems is > > > > > > > compiled out for hardening reasons (CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON). > > > > > > > Perhaps a better approach to the fix would be to change the interpreter > > > > > > > to compute "DST = DST << (SRC & 63);" (and similar for other shifts and > > > > > > > bitnesses), thus matching the behaviour of most chips' shift opcodes. > > > > > > > This would shut up UBSAN, without affecting JIT code generation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I suggested that last week > > > > > > (https://lkml.kernel.org/netdev/YMJvbGEz0xu9JU9D@gmail.com). The AND will even > > > > > > get optimized out when compiling for most CPUs. > > > > > > > > > > Did you check if the generated interpreter code for e.g. x86 is the same > > > > > before/after with that? > > > > > > > > Yes, on x86_64 with gcc 10.2.1, the disassembly of ___bpf_prog_run() is the same > > > > both before and after (with UBSAN disabled). Here is the patch I used: > > > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c > > > > index 5e31ee9f7512..996db8a1bbfb 100644 > > > > --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c > > > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c > > > > @@ -1407,12 +1407,30 @@ static u64 ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn) > > > > DST = (u32) DST OP (u32) IMM; > > > CONT; > > > > + /* > > > > + * Explicitly mask the shift amounts with 63 or 31 to avoid undefined > > > > + * behavior. Normally this won't affect the generated code. > > > > The last one should probably be more specific in terms of 'normally', e.g. that > > it is expected that the compiler is optimizing this away for archs like x86. Is > > arm64 also covered by this ... do you happen to know on which archs this won't > > be the case? > > > > Additionally, I think such comment should probably be more clear in that it also > > needs to give proper guidance to JIT authors that look at the interpreter code to > > see what they need to implement, in other words, that they don't end up copying > > an explicit AND instruction emission if not needed there. > > Same result on arm64 with gcc 10.2.0. > > On arm32 it is different, probably because the 64-bit shifts aren't native in > that case. I don't know about other architectures. But there aren't many ways > to implement shifts, and using just the low bits of the shift amount is the most > logical way. > > Please feel free to send out a patch with whatever comment you want. The diff I > gave was just an example and I am not an expert in BPF. > > > > > > > + */ > > > > +#define ALU_SHIFT(OPCODE, OP) > > > + ALU64_##OPCODE##_X: > > > + DST = DST OP (SRC & 63);> > > + CONT; > > > + ALU_##OPCODE##_X: > > > + DST = (u32) DST OP ((u32)SRC & 31); > > > + CONT; > > > + ALU64_##OPCODE##_K: > > > + DST = DST OP (IMM & 63); > > > + CONT; > > > + ALU_##OPCODE##_K: > > > + DST = (u32) DST OP ((u32)IMM & 31); > > > + CONT; > > > > For the *_K cases these are explicitly rejected by the verifier already. Is this > > required here nevertheless to suppress UBSAN false positive? > > > > No, I just didn't know that these constants are never out of range. Please feel > free to send out a patch that does this properly. > The shift-out-of-bounds on syzbot happens in ALU_##OPCODE##_X only. To pass the syzbot test, only ALU_##OPCODE##_X needs to be guarded. This old patch I tested on syzbot puts a check in all four. https://syzkaller.appspot.com/text?tag=Patch&x=11f8cacbd00000 https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=edb51be4c9a320186328893287bb30d5eed09231 thanks, kind regards Kurt Manucredo