From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
To: "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: <daniel@iogearbox.net>, <ecree@solarflare.com>,
<anatoly.trosinenko@gmail.com>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
<kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf 3/3] bpf: add per-insn complexity limit
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 22:46:06 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181204064606.803625-4-ast@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181204064606.803625-1-ast@kernel.org>
malicious bpf program may try to force the verifier to remember
a lot of distinct verifier states.
Put a limit to number of per-insn 'struct bpf_verifier_state'.
Note that hitting the limit doesn't reject the program.
It potentially makes the verifier do more steps to analyze the program.
It means that malicious programs will hit BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_INSNS sooner
instead of spending cpu time walking long link list.
The limit of BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_STATES==64 affects cilium progs
with slight increase in number of "steps" it takes to successfully verify
the programs:
before after
bpf_lb-DLB_L3.o 1940 1940
bpf_lb-DLB_L4.o 3089 3089
bpf_lb-DUNKNOWN.o 1065 1065
bpf_lxc-DDROP_ALL.o 28052 | 28162
bpf_lxc-DUNKNOWN.o 35487 | 35541
bpf_netdev.o 10864 10864
bpf_overlay.o 6643 6643
bpf_lcx_jit.o 38437 38437
But it also makes malicious program to be rejected in 0.4 seconds vs 6.5
Hence apply this limit to unprivileged programs only.
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 7 ++++++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 55a49703f423..fc760d00a38c 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -175,6 +175,7 @@ struct bpf_verifier_stack_elem {
#define BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_INSNS 131072
#define BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_STACK 1024
+#define BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_STATES 64
#define BPF_MAP_PTR_UNPRIV 1UL
#define BPF_MAP_PTR_POISON ((void *)((0xeB9FUL << 1) + \
@@ -5047,7 +5048,7 @@ static int is_state_visited(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx)
struct bpf_verifier_state_list *new_sl;
struct bpf_verifier_state_list *sl;
struct bpf_verifier_state *cur = env->cur_state, *new;
- int i, j, err;
+ int i, j, err, states_cnt = 0;
sl = env->explored_states[insn_idx];
if (!sl)
@@ -5074,8 +5075,12 @@ static int is_state_visited(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx)
return 1;
}
sl = sl->next;
+ states_cnt++;
}
+ if (!env->allow_ptr_leaks && states_cnt > BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_STATES)
+ return 0;
+
/* there were no equivalent states, remember current one.
* technically the current state is not proven to be safe yet,
* but it will either reach outer most bpf_exit (which means it's safe)
--
2.17.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-04 6:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-04 6:46 [PATCH bpf 0/3] bpf: improve verifier resilience Alexei Starovoitov
2018-12-04 6:46 ` [PATCH bpf 1/3] bpf: check pending signals while verifying programs Alexei Starovoitov
2018-12-04 6:46 ` [PATCH bpf 2/3] bpf: improve verifier branch analysis Alexei Starovoitov
2018-12-04 6:46 ` Alexei Starovoitov [this message]
2018-12-04 16:23 ` [PATCH bpf 0/3] bpf: improve verifier resilience Daniel Borkmann
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=20181204064606.803625-4-ast@kernel.org \
--to=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=anatoly.trosinenko@gmail.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=ecree@solarflare.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.