Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 2/7] bpf: Mark ALU32 operations in bpf_reg_state structure

[Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com>]

On Sat, 2022-12-10 at 18:28 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 9:25 AM Roberto Sassu
> <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> > 
> > BPF LSM needs a reliable source of information to determine if the return
> > value given by eBPF programs is acceptable or not. At the moment, choosing
> > either the 64 bit or the 32 bit one does not seem to be an option
> > (selftests fail).
> > 
> > If we choose the 64 bit one, the following happens.
> > 
> >       14:       61 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 r0 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 0)
> >       15:       74 00 00 00 15 00 00 00 w0 >>= 21
> >       16:       54 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 w0 &= 1
> >       17:       04 00 00 00 ff ff ff ff w0 += -1
> > 
> > This is the last part of test_deny_namespace. After #16, the register
> > values are:
> > 
> > smin_value = 0x0, smax_value = 0x1,
> > s32_min_value = 0x0, s32_max_value = 0x1,
> > 
> > After #17, they become:
> > 
> > smin_value = 0x0, smax_value = 0xffffffff,
> > s32_min_value = 0xffffffff, s32_max_value = 0x0
> > 
> > where only the 32 bit values are correct.
> > 
> > If we choose the 32 bit ones, the following happens.
> > 
> > 0000000000000000 <check_access>:
> >        0:       79 12 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 0)
> >        1:       79 10 08 00 00 00 00 00 r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 8)
> >        2:       67 00 00 00 3e 00 00 00 r0 <<= 62
> >        3:       c7 00 00 00 3f 00 00 00 r0 s>>= 63
> > 
> > This is part of test_libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts (no_alu32 version). In this
> > case, 64 bit register values should be used (for the 32 bit ones, there is
> > no precise information from the verifier).
> > 
> > As the examples above suggest that which register values to use depends on
> > the specific case, mark ALU32 operations in bpf_reg_state structure, so
> > that BPF LSM can choose the proper ones.
> 
> I have a hard time understanding what is the problem you're
> trying to solve and what is the proposed fix.

The problem is allowing BPF LSM programs to return positive values when
LSM hooks expect zero or negative values. Those values could be
converted to a pointer, and escape the IS_ERR() check.

The challenge is to ensure that the verifier prediction of R0 is
accurate, so that the eBPF program is not unnecessarily rejected.

> The patch is trying to remember the bitness of the last
> operation, but what for?
> The registers are 64-bit. There are 32-bit operations,
> but they always update the upper 32-bits of the register.
> reg_bounds_sync() updates 32 and 64 bit bounds regardless
> whether the previous operation was on 32 or 64 bit.

Ok, yes. I also thought that using the 64 bit register should be ok,
but selftests fail.

Regarding your comment, I have not seen reg_bounds_sync() for the case
R = imm.

> It seems you're trying to hack around something that breaks
> patch 3 which also looks fishy.

I thought it was a good idea that changes in the LSM infrastructure are
automatically reflected in the boundaries that BPF LSM should enforce.

If not, I'm open to new ideas. If we should use BTF ID sets, I'm fine
with it.

> Please explain the problem first with a concrete example.

Ok, I have a simple one:

$ llvm-objdump -d test_bpf_cookie.bpf.o

0000000000000000 <test_int_hook>:

[...]

       8:	85 00 00 00 0e 00 00 00	call 14
       9:	b4 06 00 00 ff ff ff ff	w6 = -1
      10:	5e 08 07 00 00 00 00 00	if w8 != w0 goto +7 <LBB11_3>
      11:	bf 71 00 00 00 00 00 00	r1 = r7
      12:	85 00 00 00 ae 00 00 00	call 174
      13:	18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00	r1 = 0 ll
      15:	79 12 00 00 00 00 00 00	r2 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 0)
      16:	4f 02 00 00 00 00 00 00	r2 |= r0
      17:	7b 21 00 00 00 00 00 00	*(u64 *)(r1 + 0) = r2

smin_value = 0xffffffff, smax_value = 0xffffffff,
s32_min_value = 0xffffffff, s32_max_value = 0xffffffff,

This is what I see at the time the BPF LSM check should be done.

How this should be properly handled?

Thanks

Roberto