* [PATCH net 1/2] bpf: dynamically allocate digest scratch buffer
2016-12-17 0:54 [PATCH net 0/2] Two BPF fixes Daniel Borkmann
@ 2016-12-17 0:54 ` Daniel Borkmann
2016-12-17 0:54 ` [PATCH net 2/2] bpf: fix overflow in prog accounting Daniel Borkmann
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Borkmann @ 2016-12-17 0:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: davem; +Cc: ast, netdev, Daniel Borkmann
Geert rightfully complained that 7bd509e311f4 ("bpf: add prog_digest
and expose it via fdinfo/netlink") added a too large allocation of
variable 'raw' from bss section, and should instead be done dynamically:
# ./scripts/bloat-o-meter kernel/bpf/core.o.1 kernel/bpf/core.o.2
add/remove: 3/0 grow/shrink: 0/0 up/down: 33291/0 (33291)
function old new delta
raw - 32832 +32832
[...]
Since this is only relevant during program creation path, which can be
considered slow-path anyway, lets allocate that dynamically and be not
implicitly dependent on verifier mutex. Move bpf_prog_calc_digest() at
the beginning of replace_map_fd_with_map_ptr() and also error handling
stays straight forward.
Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
---
include/linux/bpf.h | 2 +-
include/linux/filter.h | 14 +++++++++++---
kernel/bpf/core.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++-----------
kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 2 +-
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 6 ++++--
5 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
index 8796ff0..201eb48 100644
--- a/include/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
@@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ struct bpf_event_entry {
u64 bpf_get_stackid(u64 r1, u64 r2, u64 r3, u64 r4, u64 r5);
bool bpf_prog_array_compatible(struct bpf_array *array, const struct bpf_prog *fp);
-void bpf_prog_calc_digest(struct bpf_prog *fp);
+int bpf_prog_calc_digest(struct bpf_prog *fp);
const struct bpf_func_proto *bpf_get_trace_printk_proto(void);
diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h
index 6a16583..a0934e6 100644
--- a/include/linux/filter.h
+++ b/include/linux/filter.h
@@ -57,9 +57,6 @@
/* BPF program can access up to 512 bytes of stack space. */
#define MAX_BPF_STACK 512
-/* Maximum BPF program size in bytes. */
-#define MAX_BPF_SIZE (BPF_MAXINSNS * sizeof(struct bpf_insn))
-
/* Helper macros for filter block array initializers. */
/* ALU ops on registers, bpf_add|sub|...: dst_reg += src_reg */
@@ -517,6 +514,17 @@ static __always_inline u32 bpf_prog_run_xdp(const struct bpf_prog *prog,
return BPF_PROG_RUN(prog, xdp);
}
+static inline u32 bpf_prog_insn_size(const struct bpf_prog *prog)
+{
+ return prog->len * sizeof(struct bpf_insn);
+}
+
+static inline u32 bpf_prog_digest_scratch_size(const struct bpf_prog *prog)
+{
+ return round_up(bpf_prog_insn_size(prog) +
+ sizeof(__be64) + 1, SHA_MESSAGE_BYTES);
+}
+
static inline unsigned int bpf_prog_size(unsigned int proglen)
{
return max(sizeof(struct bpf_prog),
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
index 83e0d15..75c08b8 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
@@ -136,28 +136,29 @@ void __bpf_prog_free(struct bpf_prog *fp)
vfree(fp);
}
-#define SHA_BPF_RAW_SIZE \
- round_up(MAX_BPF_SIZE + sizeof(__be64) + 1, SHA_MESSAGE_BYTES)
-
-/* Called under verifier mutex. */
-void bpf_prog_calc_digest(struct bpf_prog *fp)
+int bpf_prog_calc_digest(struct bpf_prog *fp)
{
const u32 bits_offset = SHA_MESSAGE_BYTES - sizeof(__be64);
- static u32 ws[SHA_WORKSPACE_WORDS];
- static u8 raw[SHA_BPF_RAW_SIZE];
- struct bpf_insn *dst = (void *)raw;
+ u32 raw_size = bpf_prog_digest_scratch_size(fp);
+ u32 ws[SHA_WORKSPACE_WORDS];
u32 i, bsize, psize, blocks;
+ struct bpf_insn *dst;
bool was_ld_map;
- u8 *todo = raw;
+ u8 *raw, *todo;
__be32 *result;
__be64 *bits;
+ raw = vmalloc(raw_size);
+ if (!raw)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
sha_init(fp->digest);
memset(ws, 0, sizeof(ws));
/* We need to take out the map fd for the digest calculation
* since they are unstable from user space side.
*/
+ dst = (void *)raw;
for (i = 0, was_ld_map = false; i < fp->len; i++) {
dst[i] = fp->insnsi[i];
if (!was_ld_map &&
@@ -177,12 +178,13 @@ void bpf_prog_calc_digest(struct bpf_prog *fp)
}
}
- psize = fp->len * sizeof(struct bpf_insn);
- memset(&raw[psize], 0, sizeof(raw) - psize);
+ psize = bpf_prog_insn_size(fp);
+ memset(&raw[psize], 0, raw_size - psize);
raw[psize++] = 0x80;
bsize = round_up(psize, SHA_MESSAGE_BYTES);
blocks = bsize / SHA_MESSAGE_BYTES;
+ todo = raw;
if (bsize - psize >= sizeof(__be64)) {
bits = (__be64 *)(todo + bsize - sizeof(__be64));
} else {
@@ -199,6 +201,9 @@ void bpf_prog_calc_digest(struct bpf_prog *fp)
result = (__force __be32 *)fp->digest;
for (i = 0; i < SHA_DIGEST_WORDS; i++)
result[i] = cpu_to_be32(fp->digest[i]);
+
+ vfree(raw);
+ return 0;
}
static bool bpf_is_jmp_and_has_target(const struct bpf_insn *insn)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
index 4819ec9..35d674c 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
@@ -811,7 +811,7 @@ static int bpf_prog_load(union bpf_attr *attr)
err = -EFAULT;
if (copy_from_user(prog->insns, u64_to_user_ptr(attr->insns),
- prog->len * sizeof(struct bpf_insn)) != 0)
+ bpf_prog_insn_size(prog)) != 0)
goto free_prog;
prog->orig_prog = NULL;
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 81e267b..64b7b1a 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -2931,6 +2931,10 @@ static int replace_map_fd_with_map_ptr(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
int insn_cnt = env->prog->len;
int i, j, err;
+ err = bpf_prog_calc_digest(env->prog);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
+
for (i = 0; i < insn_cnt; i++, insn++) {
if (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_LDX &&
(BPF_MODE(insn->code) != BPF_MEM || insn->imm != 0)) {
@@ -3178,8 +3182,6 @@ int bpf_check(struct bpf_prog **prog, union bpf_attr *attr)
log_level = 0;
}
- bpf_prog_calc_digest(env->prog);
-
ret = replace_map_fd_with_map_ptr(env);
if (ret < 0)
goto skip_full_check;
--
1.9.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [PATCH net 2/2] bpf: fix overflow in prog accounting
2016-12-17 0:54 [PATCH net 0/2] Two BPF fixes Daniel Borkmann
2016-12-17 0:54 ` [PATCH net 1/2] bpf: dynamically allocate digest scratch buffer Daniel Borkmann
@ 2016-12-17 0:54 ` Daniel Borkmann
2016-12-17 2:52 ` kbuild test robot
2016-12-17 3:15 ` kbuild test robot
1 sibling, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Borkmann @ 2016-12-17 0:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: davem; +Cc: ast, netdev, Daniel Borkmann
Commit aaac3ba95e4c ("bpf: charge user for creation of BPF maps and
programs") made a wrong assumption of charging against prog->pages.
Unlike map->pages, prog->pages are still subject to change when we
need to expand the program through bpf_prog_realloc().
This can for example happen during verification stage when we need to
expand and rewrite parts of the program. Should the required space
cross a page boundary, then prog->pages is not the same anymore as
its original value that we used to bpf_prog_charge_memlock() on. Thus,
we'll hit a wrap-around during bpf_prog_uncharge_memlock() when prog
is freed eventually. I noticed this that despite having unlimited
memlock, programs suddenly refused to load with EPERM error due to
insufficient memlock.
There are two ways to fix this issue. One would be to add a cached
variable to struct bpf_prog that takes a snapshot of prog->pages at the
time of charging. The other approach is to also account for resizes. I
chose to go with the latter for a couple of reasons: i) We want accounting
rather to be more accurate instead of further fooling limits, ii) adding
yet another page counter on struct bpf_prog would also be a waste just
for this purpose. We also do want to charge as early as possible to
avoid going into the verifier just to find out later on that we crossed
limits. The only place that needs to be fixed is bpf_prog_realloc(),
since only here we expand the program, so we try to account for the
needed delta and should we fail, call-sites check for outcome anyway.
On cBPF to eBPF migrations, we don't grab a reference to the user as
they are charged differently. With that in place, my test case worked
fine.
Fixes: aaac3ba95e4c ("bpf: charge user for creation of BPF maps and programs")
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
---
include/linux/filter.h | 3 +++
kernel/bpf/core.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 25 ---------------------
3 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h
index a0934e6..496a8c0 100644
--- a/include/linux/filter.h
+++ b/include/linux/filter.h
@@ -577,6 +577,9 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_prog_realloc(struct bpf_prog *fp_old, unsigned int size,
gfp_t gfp_extra_flags);
void __bpf_prog_free(struct bpf_prog *fp);
+int bpf_prog_charge_memlock(struct bpf_prog *prog);
+void bpf_prog_uncharge_memlock(struct bpf_prog *prog);
+
static inline void bpf_prog_unlock_free(struct bpf_prog *fp)
{
bpf_prog_unlock_ro(fp);
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
index 75c08b8..1f9a146 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
@@ -71,6 +71,51 @@ void *bpf_internal_load_pointer_neg_helper(const struct sk_buff *skb, int k, uns
return NULL;
}
+static int __bpf_prog_charge(struct user_struct *user, u32 pages)
+{
+ unsigned long memlock_limit = rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
+ unsigned long user_bufs;
+
+ if (user) {
+ user_bufs = atomic_long_add_return(pages, &user->locked_vm);
+ if (user_bufs > memlock_limit) {
+ atomic_long_sub(pages, &user->locked_vm);
+ return -EPERM;
+ }
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static void __bpf_prog_uncharge(struct user_struct *user, u32 pages)
+{
+ if (user)
+ atomic_long_sub(pages, &user->locked_vm);
+}
+
+int bpf_prog_charge_memlock(struct bpf_prog *prog)
+{
+ struct user_struct *user = get_current_user();
+ int ret;
+
+ ret = __bpf_prog_charge(user, prog->pages);
+ if (ret) {
+ free_uid(user);
+ return ret;
+ }
+
+ prog->aux->user = user;
+ return 0;
+}
+
+void bpf_prog_uncharge_memlock(struct bpf_prog *prog)
+{
+ struct user_struct *user = prog->aux->user;
+
+ __bpf_prog_uncharge(user, prog->pages);
+ free_uid(user);
+}
+
struct bpf_prog *bpf_prog_alloc(unsigned int size, gfp_t gfp_extra_flags)
{
gfp_t gfp_flags = GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_HIGHMEM | __GFP_ZERO |
@@ -105,19 +150,29 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_prog_realloc(struct bpf_prog *fp_old, unsigned int size,
gfp_t gfp_flags = GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_HIGHMEM | __GFP_ZERO |
gfp_extra_flags;
struct bpf_prog *fp;
+ u32 pages, delta;
+ int ret;
BUG_ON(fp_old == NULL);
size = round_up(size, PAGE_SIZE);
- if (size <= fp_old->pages * PAGE_SIZE)
+ pages = size / PAGE_SIZE;
+ if (pages <= fp_old->pages)
return fp_old;
+ delta = pages - fp_old->pages;
+ ret = __bpf_prog_charge(fp_old->aux->user, delta);
+ if (ret)
+ return NULL;
+
fp = __vmalloc(size, gfp_flags, PAGE_KERNEL);
- if (fp != NULL) {
+ if (fp == NULL) {
+ __bpf_prog_uncharge(fp_old->aux->user, delta);
+ } else {
kmemcheck_annotate_bitfield(fp, meta);
memcpy(fp, fp_old, fp_old->pages * PAGE_SIZE);
- fp->pages = size / PAGE_SIZE;
+ fp->pages = pages;
fp->aux->prog = fp;
/* We keep fp->aux from fp_old around in the new
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
index 35d674c..016382b 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
@@ -615,31 +615,6 @@ static void free_used_maps(struct bpf_prog_aux *aux)
kfree(aux->used_maps);
}
-static int bpf_prog_charge_memlock(struct bpf_prog *prog)
-{
- struct user_struct *user = get_current_user();
- unsigned long memlock_limit;
-
- memlock_limit = rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
-
- atomic_long_add(prog->pages, &user->locked_vm);
- if (atomic_long_read(&user->locked_vm) > memlock_limit) {
- atomic_long_sub(prog->pages, &user->locked_vm);
- free_uid(user);
- return -EPERM;
- }
- prog->aux->user = user;
- return 0;
-}
-
-static void bpf_prog_uncharge_memlock(struct bpf_prog *prog)
-{
- struct user_struct *user = prog->aux->user;
-
- atomic_long_sub(prog->pages, &user->locked_vm);
- free_uid(user);
-}
-
static void __bpf_prog_put_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu)
{
struct bpf_prog_aux *aux = container_of(rcu, struct bpf_prog_aux, rcu);
--
1.9.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread