From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
To: ast@kernel.org
Cc: andrii@kernel.org, john.fastabend@gmail.com, liulin063@gmail.com,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Subject: [PATCH bpf 2/4] bpf: Fix insufficient bounds propagation from adjust_scalar_min_max_vals
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2022 14:47:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220701124727.11153-2-daniel@iogearbox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220701124727.11153-1-daniel@iogearbox.net>
Kuee reported a corner case where the tnum becomes constant after the call
to __reg_bound_offset(), but the register's bounds are not, that is, its
min bounds are still not equal to the register's max bounds.
This in turn allows to leak pointers through turning a pointer register as
is into an unknown scalar via adjust_ptr_min_max_vals().
Before:
func#0 @0
0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0))
0: (b7) r0 = 1 ; R0_w=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0))
1: (b7) r3 = 0 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0))
2: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar()
3: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar()
4: (47) r3 |= 32767 ; R3_w=scalar(smin=-9223372036854743041,umin=32767,var_off=(0x7fff; 0xffffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881)
5: (75) if r3 s>= 0x0 goto pc+1 ; R3_w=scalar(umin=9223372036854808575,var_off=(0x8000000000007fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767)
6: (95) exit
from 5 to 7: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0))
7: (d5) if r3 s<= 0x8000 goto pc+1 ; R3=scalar(umin=32769,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767)
8: (95) exit
from 7 to 9: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x8000)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0))
9: (07) r3 += -32767 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) <--- [*]
10: (95) exit
What can be seen here is that R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff;
0x8000)) after the operation R3 += -32767 results in a 'malformed' constant, that
is, R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)). Intersecting with var_off has
not been done at that point via __update_reg_bounds(), which would have improved
the umax to be equal to umin.
Refactor the tnum <> min/max bounds information flow into a reg_bounds_sync()
helper and use it consistently everywhere. After the fix, bounds have been
corrected to R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) and thus the register
is regarded as a 'proper' constant scalar of 0.
After:
func#0 @0
0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0))
0: (b7) r0 = 1 ; R0_w=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0))
1: (b7) r3 = 0 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0))
2: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar()
3: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar()
4: (47) r3 |= 32767 ; R3_w=scalar(smin=-9223372036854743041,umin=32767,var_off=(0x7fff; 0xffffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881)
5: (75) if r3 s>= 0x0 goto pc+1 ; R3_w=scalar(umin=9223372036854808575,var_off=(0x8000000000007fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767)
6: (95) exit
from 5 to 7: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0))
7: (d5) if r3 s<= 0x8000 goto pc+1 ; R3=scalar(umin=32769,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767)
8: (95) exit
from 7 to 9: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x8000)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0))
9: (07) r3 += -32767 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) <--- [*]
10: (95) exit
Fixes: b03c9f9fdc37 ("bpf/verifier: track signed and unsigned min/max values")
Reported-by: Kuee K1r0a <liulin063@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 72 ++++++++++++++-----------------------------
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index ec164b3c0fa2..0efbac0fd126 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -1562,6 +1562,21 @@ static void __reg_bound_offset(struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
reg->var_off = tnum_or(tnum_clear_subreg(var64_off), var32_off);
}
+static void reg_bounds_sync(struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
+{
+ /* We might have learned new bounds from the var_off. */
+ __update_reg_bounds(reg);
+ /* We might have learned something about the sign bit. */
+ __reg_deduce_bounds(reg);
+ /* We might have learned some bits from the bounds. */
+ __reg_bound_offset(reg);
+ /* Intersecting with the old var_off might have improved our bounds
+ * slightly, e.g. if umax was 0x7f...f and var_off was (0; 0xf...fc),
+ * then new var_off is (0; 0x7f...fc) which improves our umax.
+ */
+ __update_reg_bounds(reg);
+}
+
static bool __reg32_bound_s64(s32 a)
{
return a >= 0 && a <= S32_MAX;
@@ -1603,16 +1618,8 @@ static void __reg_combine_32_into_64(struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
* so they do not impact tnum bounds calculation.
*/
__mark_reg64_unbounded(reg);
- __update_reg_bounds(reg);
}
-
- /* Intersecting with the old var_off might have improved our bounds
- * slightly. e.g. if umax was 0x7f...f and var_off was (0; 0xf...fc),
- * then new var_off is (0; 0x7f...fc) which improves our umax.
- */
- __reg_deduce_bounds(reg);
- __reg_bound_offset(reg);
- __update_reg_bounds(reg);
+ reg_bounds_sync(reg);
}
static bool __reg64_bound_s32(s64 a)
@@ -1628,7 +1635,6 @@ static bool __reg64_bound_u32(u64 a)
static void __reg_combine_64_into_32(struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
{
__mark_reg32_unbounded(reg);
-
if (__reg64_bound_s32(reg->smin_value) && __reg64_bound_s32(reg->smax_value)) {
reg->s32_min_value = (s32)reg->smin_value;
reg->s32_max_value = (s32)reg->smax_value;
@@ -1637,14 +1643,7 @@ static void __reg_combine_64_into_32(struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
reg->u32_min_value = (u32)reg->umin_value;
reg->u32_max_value = (u32)reg->umax_value;
}
-
- /* Intersecting with the old var_off might have improved our bounds
- * slightly. e.g. if umax was 0x7f...f and var_off was (0; 0xf...fc),
- * then new var_off is (0; 0x7f...fc) which improves our umax.
- */
- __reg_deduce_bounds(reg);
- __reg_bound_offset(reg);
- __update_reg_bounds(reg);
+ reg_bounds_sync(reg);
}
/* Mark a register as having a completely unknown (scalar) value. */
@@ -6943,9 +6942,7 @@ static void do_refine_retval_range(struct bpf_reg_state *regs, int ret_type,
ret_reg->s32_max_value = meta->msize_max_value;
ret_reg->smin_value = -MAX_ERRNO;
ret_reg->s32_min_value = -MAX_ERRNO;
- __reg_deduce_bounds(ret_reg);
- __reg_bound_offset(ret_reg);
- __update_reg_bounds(ret_reg);
+ reg_bounds_sync(ret_reg);
}
static int
@@ -8202,11 +8199,7 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
if (!check_reg_sane_offset(env, dst_reg, ptr_reg->type))
return -EINVAL;
-
- __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg);
- __reg_deduce_bounds(dst_reg);
- __reg_bound_offset(dst_reg);
-
+ reg_bounds_sync(dst_reg);
if (sanitize_check_bounds(env, insn, dst_reg) < 0)
return -EACCES;
if (sanitize_needed(opcode)) {
@@ -8944,10 +8937,7 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
/* ALU32 ops are zero extended into 64bit register */
if (alu32)
zext_32_to_64(dst_reg);
-
- __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg);
- __reg_deduce_bounds(dst_reg);
- __reg_bound_offset(dst_reg);
+ reg_bounds_sync(dst_reg);
return 0;
}
@@ -9136,10 +9126,7 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn)
insn->dst_reg);
}
zext_32_to_64(dst_reg);
-
- __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg);
- __reg_deduce_bounds(dst_reg);
- __reg_bound_offset(dst_reg);
+ reg_bounds_sync(dst_reg);
}
} else {
/* case: R = imm
@@ -9742,21 +9729,8 @@ static void __reg_combine_min_max(struct bpf_reg_state *src_reg,
dst_reg->smax_value);
src_reg->var_off = dst_reg->var_off = tnum_intersect(src_reg->var_off,
dst_reg->var_off);
- /* We might have learned new bounds from the var_off. */
- __update_reg_bounds(src_reg);
- __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg);
- /* We might have learned something about the sign bit. */
- __reg_deduce_bounds(src_reg);
- __reg_deduce_bounds(dst_reg);
- /* We might have learned some bits from the bounds. */
- __reg_bound_offset(src_reg);
- __reg_bound_offset(dst_reg);
- /* Intersecting with the old var_off might have improved our bounds
- * slightly. e.g. if umax was 0x7f...f and var_off was (0; 0xf...fc),
- * then new var_off is (0; 0x7f...fc) which improves our umax.
- */
- __update_reg_bounds(src_reg);
- __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg);
+ reg_bounds_sync(src_reg);
+ reg_bounds_sync(dst_reg);
}
static void reg_combine_min_max(struct bpf_reg_state *true_src,
--
2.27.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-01 12:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-07-01 12:47 [PATCH bpf 1/4] bpf: Fix incorrect verifier simulation around jmp32's jeq/jne Daniel Borkmann
2022-07-01 12:47 ` Daniel Borkmann [this message]
2022-07-01 12:47 ` [PATCH bpf 3/4] bpf, selftests: Add verifier test case for imm=0,umin=0,umax=1 scalar Daniel Borkmann
2022-07-01 12:47 ` [PATCH bpf 4/4] bpf, selftests: Add verifier test case for jmp32's jeq/jne Daniel Borkmann
2022-07-01 20:10 ` [PATCH bpf 1/4] bpf: Fix incorrect verifier simulation around " patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
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=20220701124727.11153-2-daniel@iogearbox.net \
--to=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=liulin063@gmail.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox