From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org
Cc: andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, martin.lau@linux.dev,
kernel-team@fb.com, yhs@fb.com,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v5 3/4] bpf: verify scalar ids mapping in regsafe() using check_ids()
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 19:08:00 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230612160801.2804666-4-eddyz87@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230612160801.2804666-1-eddyz87@gmail.com>
Make sure that the following unsafe example is rejected by verifier:
1: r9 = ... some pointer with range X ...
2: r6 = ... unbound scalar ID=a ...
3: r7 = ... unbound scalar ID=b ...
4: if (r6 > r7) goto +1
5: r6 = r7
6: if (r6 > X) goto ...
--- checkpoint ---
7: r9 += r7
8: *(u64 *)r9 = Y
This example is unsafe because not all execution paths verify r7 range.
Because of the jump at (4) the verifier would arrive at (6) in two states:
I. r6{.id=b}, r7{.id=b} via path 1-6;
II. r6{.id=a}, r7{.id=b} via path 1-4, 6.
Currently regsafe() does not call check_ids() for scalar registers,
thus from POV of regsafe() states (I) and (II) are identical. If the
path 1-6 is taken by verifier first, and checkpoint is created at (6)
the path [1-4, 6] would be considered safe.
Changes in this commit:
- Function check_scalar_ids() is added, it differs from check_ids() in
the following aspects:
- treats ID zero as a unique scalar ID;
- disallows mapping same 'cur_id' to multiple 'old_id'.
- check_scalar_ids() needs to generate temporary unique IDs, field
'tmp_id_gen' is added to bpf_verifier_env::idmap_scratch to
facilitate this.
- Function scalar_regs_exact() is added, it differs from regs_exact()
in the following aspects:
- uses check_scalar_ids() for ID comparison;
- does not check reg_obj_id as this field is not used for scalar
values.
- regsafe() is updated to:
- use check_scalar_ids() for precise scalar registers.
- use scalar_regs_exact() for scalar registers, but only for
explore_alu_limits branch. This simplifies control flow for scalar
case, and has no measurable performance impact.
- check_alu_op() is updated avoid generating bpf_reg_state::id for
constant scalar values when processing BPF_MOV. ID is needed to
propagate range information for identical values, but there is
nothing to propagate for constants.
Fixes: 75748837b7e5 ("bpf: Propagate scalar ranges through register assignments.")
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
---
include/linux/bpf_verifier.h | 17 ++++--
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 108 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
2 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
index 73a98f6240fd..042b76fe8e29 100644
--- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
+++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
@@ -313,11 +313,6 @@ struct bpf_idx_pair {
u32 idx;
};
-struct bpf_id_pair {
- u32 old;
- u32 cur;
-};
-
#define MAX_CALL_FRAMES 8
/* Maximum number of register states that can exist at once */
#define BPF_ID_MAP_SIZE ((MAX_BPF_REG + MAX_BPF_STACK / BPF_REG_SIZE) * MAX_CALL_FRAMES)
@@ -559,6 +554,16 @@ struct backtrack_state {
u64 stack_masks[MAX_CALL_FRAMES];
};
+struct bpf_id_pair {
+ u32 old;
+ u32 cur;
+};
+
+struct bpf_idmap {
+ u32 tmp_id_gen;
+ struct bpf_id_pair map[BPF_ID_MAP_SIZE];
+};
+
struct bpf_idset {
u32 count;
u32 ids[BPF_ID_MAP_SIZE];
@@ -596,7 +601,7 @@ struct bpf_verifier_env {
struct bpf_verifier_log log;
struct bpf_subprog_info subprog_info[BPF_MAX_SUBPROGS + 1];
union {
- struct bpf_id_pair idmap_scratch[BPF_ID_MAP_SIZE];
+ struct bpf_idmap idmap_scratch;
struct bpf_idset idset_scratch;
};
struct {
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 9b5f2433194f..b15ebfed207a 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -12942,12 +12942,14 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn)
if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X) {
struct bpf_reg_state *src_reg = regs + insn->src_reg;
struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg = regs + insn->dst_reg;
+ bool need_id = src_reg->type == SCALAR_VALUE && !src_reg->id &&
+ !tnum_is_const(src_reg->var_off);
if (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64) {
/* case: R1 = R2
* copy register state to dest reg
*/
- if (src_reg->type == SCALAR_VALUE && !src_reg->id)
+ if (need_id)
/* Assign src and dst registers the same ID
* that will be used by find_equal_scalars()
* to propagate min/max range.
@@ -12966,7 +12968,7 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn)
} else if (src_reg->type == SCALAR_VALUE) {
bool is_src_reg_u32 = src_reg->umax_value <= U32_MAX;
- if (is_src_reg_u32 && !src_reg->id)
+ if (is_src_reg_u32 && need_id)
src_reg->id = ++env->id_gen;
copy_register_state(dst_reg, src_reg);
/* Make sure ID is cleared if src_reg is not in u32 range otherwise
@@ -15122,8 +15124,9 @@ static bool range_within(struct bpf_reg_state *old,
* So we look through our idmap to see if this old id has been seen before. If
* so, we require the new id to match; otherwise, we add the id pair to the map.
*/
-static bool check_ids(u32 old_id, u32 cur_id, struct bpf_id_pair *idmap)
+static bool check_ids(u32 old_id, u32 cur_id, struct bpf_idmap *idmap)
{
+ struct bpf_id_pair *map = idmap->map;
unsigned int i;
/* either both IDs should be set or both should be zero */
@@ -15134,14 +15137,44 @@ static bool check_ids(u32 old_id, u32 cur_id, struct bpf_id_pair *idmap)
return true;
for (i = 0; i < BPF_ID_MAP_SIZE; i++) {
- if (!idmap[i].old) {
+ if (!map[i].old) {
/* Reached an empty slot; haven't seen this id before */
- idmap[i].old = old_id;
- idmap[i].cur = cur_id;
+ map[i].old = old_id;
+ map[i].cur = cur_id;
return true;
}
- if (idmap[i].old == old_id)
- return idmap[i].cur == cur_id;
+ if (map[i].old == old_id)
+ return map[i].cur == cur_id;
+ }
+ /* We ran out of idmap slots, which should be impossible */
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
+ return false;
+}
+
+/* Similar to check_ids(), but:
+ * - disallow mapping of different 'old_id' values to same 'cur_id' value;
+ * - for zero 'old_id' or 'cur_id' allocate a unique temporary ID
+ * to allow pairs like '0 vs unique ID', 'unique ID vs 0'.
+ */
+static bool check_scalar_ids(u32 old_id, u32 cur_id, struct bpf_idmap *idmap)
+{
+ struct bpf_id_pair *map = idmap->map;
+ unsigned int i;
+
+ old_id = old_id ? old_id : ++idmap->tmp_id_gen;
+ cur_id = cur_id ? cur_id : ++idmap->tmp_id_gen;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < BPF_ID_MAP_SIZE; i++) {
+ if (!map[i].old) {
+ /* Reached an empty slot; haven't seen this id before */
+ map[i].old = old_id;
+ map[i].cur = cur_id;
+ return true;
+ }
+ if (map[i].old == old_id)
+ return map[i].cur == cur_id;
+ if (map[i].cur == cur_id)
+ return false;
}
/* We ran out of idmap slots, which should be impossible */
WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
@@ -15246,16 +15279,24 @@ static void clean_live_states(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn,
static bool regs_exact(const struct bpf_reg_state *rold,
const struct bpf_reg_state *rcur,
- struct bpf_id_pair *idmap)
+ struct bpf_idmap *idmap)
{
return memcmp(rold, rcur, offsetof(struct bpf_reg_state, id)) == 0 &&
check_ids(rold->id, rcur->id, idmap) &&
check_ids(rold->ref_obj_id, rcur->ref_obj_id, idmap);
}
+static bool scalar_regs_exact(const struct bpf_reg_state *rold,
+ const struct bpf_reg_state *rcur,
+ struct bpf_idmap *idmap)
+{
+ return memcmp(rold, rcur, offsetof(struct bpf_reg_state, id)) == 0 &&
+ check_scalar_ids(rold->id, rcur->id, idmap);
+}
+
/* Returns true if (rold safe implies rcur safe) */
static bool regsafe(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_reg_state *rold,
- struct bpf_reg_state *rcur, struct bpf_id_pair *idmap)
+ struct bpf_reg_state *rcur, struct bpf_idmap *idmap)
{
if (!(rold->live & REG_LIVE_READ))
/* explored state didn't use this */
@@ -15292,15 +15333,37 @@ static bool regsafe(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_reg_state *rold,
switch (base_type(rold->type)) {
case SCALAR_VALUE:
- if (regs_exact(rold, rcur, idmap))
- return true;
if (env->explore_alu_limits)
- return false;
+ return scalar_regs_exact(rold, rcur, idmap);
if (!rold->precise)
return true;
- /* new val must satisfy old val knowledge */
+ /* Why check_ids() for scalar registers?
+ *
+ * Consider the following BPF code:
+ * 1: r6 = ... unbound scalar, ID=a ...
+ * 2: r7 = ... unbound scalar, ID=b ...
+ * 3: if (r6 > r7) goto +1
+ * 4: r6 = r7
+ * 5: if (r6 > X) goto ...
+ * 6: ... memory operation using r7 ...
+ *
+ * First verification path is [1-6]:
+ * - at (4) same bpf_reg_state::id (b) would be assigned to r6 and r7;
+ * - at (5) r6 would be marked <= X, find_equal_scalars() would also mark
+ * r7 <= X, because r6 and r7 share same id.
+ * Next verification path is [1-4, 6].
+ *
+ * Instruction (6) would be reached in two states:
+ * I. r6{.id=b}, r7{.id=b} via path 1-6;
+ * II. r6{.id=a}, r7{.id=b} via path 1-4, 6.
+ *
+ * Use check_ids() to distinguish these states.
+ * ---
+ * Also verify that new value satisfies old value range knowledge.
+ */
return range_within(rold, rcur) &&
- tnum_in(rold->var_off, rcur->var_off);
+ tnum_in(rold->var_off, rcur->var_off) &&
+ check_scalar_ids(rold->id, rcur->id, idmap);
case PTR_TO_MAP_KEY:
case PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE:
case PTR_TO_MEM:
@@ -15346,7 +15409,7 @@ static bool regsafe(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_reg_state *rold,
}
static bool stacksafe(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_func_state *old,
- struct bpf_func_state *cur, struct bpf_id_pair *idmap)
+ struct bpf_func_state *cur, struct bpf_idmap *idmap)
{
int i, spi;
@@ -15449,7 +15512,7 @@ static bool stacksafe(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_func_state *old,
}
static bool refsafe(struct bpf_func_state *old, struct bpf_func_state *cur,
- struct bpf_id_pair *idmap)
+ struct bpf_idmap *idmap)
{
int i;
@@ -15497,13 +15560,13 @@ static bool func_states_equal(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_func_stat
for (i = 0; i < MAX_BPF_REG; i++)
if (!regsafe(env, &old->regs[i], &cur->regs[i],
- env->idmap_scratch))
+ &env->idmap_scratch))
return false;
- if (!stacksafe(env, old, cur, env->idmap_scratch))
+ if (!stacksafe(env, old, cur, &env->idmap_scratch))
return false;
- if (!refsafe(old, cur, env->idmap_scratch))
+ if (!refsafe(old, cur, &env->idmap_scratch))
return false;
return true;
@@ -15518,7 +15581,8 @@ static bool states_equal(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
if (old->curframe != cur->curframe)
return false;
- memset(env->idmap_scratch, 0, sizeof(env->idmap_scratch));
+ env->idmap_scratch.tmp_id_gen = env->id_gen;
+ memset(&env->idmap_scratch.map, 0, sizeof(env->idmap_scratch));
/* Verification state from speculative execution simulation
* must never prune a non-speculative execution one.
@@ -15536,7 +15600,7 @@ static bool states_equal(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
return false;
if (old->active_lock.id &&
- !check_ids(old->active_lock.id, cur->active_lock.id, env->idmap_scratch))
+ !check_ids(old->active_lock.id, cur->active_lock.id, &env->idmap_scratch))
return false;
if (old->active_rcu_lock != cur->active_rcu_lock)
--
2.40.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-12 16:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-12 16:07 [PATCH bpf-next v5 0/4] verify scalar ids mapping in regsafe() Eduard Zingerman
2023-06-12 16:07 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 1/4] bpf: use scalar ids in mark_chain_precision() Eduard Zingerman
2023-06-12 19:56 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-06-12 16:07 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 2/4] selftests/bpf: check if mark_chain_precision() follows scalar ids Eduard Zingerman
2023-06-12 16:08 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2023-06-12 19:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 3/4] bpf: verify scalar ids mapping in regsafe() using check_ids() Andrii Nakryiko
2023-06-12 21:01 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-06-13 0:10 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-06-13 0:28 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-06-13 8:02 ` kernel test robot
2023-06-12 16:08 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 4/4] selftests/bpf: verify that check_ids() is used for scalars in regsafe() Eduard Zingerman
2023-06-12 17:40 ` Maxim Mikityanskiy
2023-06-12 19:42 ` Eduard Zingerman
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=20230612160801.2804666-4-eddyz87@gmail.com \
--to=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=yhs@fb.com \
/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.