* [PATCH AUTOSEL 6.10 189/197] bpf: Make the pointer returned by iter next method valid
[not found] <20240925115823.1303019-1-sashal@kernel.org>
@ 2024-09-25 11:53 ` Sasha Levin
2024-09-25 11:53 ` [PATCH AUTOSEL 6.10 194/197] bpftool: Fix undefined behavior caused by shifting into the sign bit Sasha Levin
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Sasha Levin @ 2024-09-25 11:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel, stable
Cc: Juntong Deng, Alexei Starovoitov, Sasha Levin, daniel, andrii,
bpf
From: Juntong Deng <juntong.deng@outlook.com>
[ Upstream commit 4cc8c50c9abcb2646a7a4fcef3cea5dcb30c06cf ]
Currently we cannot pass the pointer returned by iter next method as
argument to KF_TRUSTED_ARGS or KF_RCU kfuncs, because the pointer
returned by iter next method is not "valid".
This patch sets the pointer returned by iter next method to be valid.
This is based on the fact that if the iterator is implemented correctly,
then the pointer returned from the iter next method should be valid.
This does not make NULL pointer valid. If the iter next method has
KF_RET_NULL flag, then the verifier will ask the ebpf program to
check NULL pointer.
KF_RCU_PROTECTED iterator is a special case, the pointer returned by
iter next method should only be valid within RCU critical section,
so it should be with MEM_RCU, not PTR_TRUSTED.
Another special case is bpf_iter_num_next, which returns a pointer with
base type PTR_TO_MEM. PTR_TO_MEM should not be combined with type flag
PTR_TRUSTED (PTR_TO_MEM already means the pointer is valid).
The pointer returned by iter next method of other types of iterators
is with PTR_TRUSTED.
In addition, this patch adds get_iter_from_state to help us get the
current iterator from the current state.
Signed-off-by: Juntong Deng <juntong.deng@outlook.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/AM6PR03MB584869F8B448EA1C87B7CDA399962@AM6PR03MB5848.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 73f55f4b945ee..2eff14da6bf16 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -7975,6 +7975,15 @@ static int widen_imprecise_scalars(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
return 0;
}
+static struct bpf_reg_state *get_iter_from_state(struct bpf_verifier_state *cur_st,
+ struct bpf_kfunc_call_arg_meta *meta)
+{
+ int iter_frameno = meta->iter.frameno;
+ int iter_spi = meta->iter.spi;
+
+ return &cur_st->frame[iter_frameno]->stack[iter_spi].spilled_ptr;
+}
+
/* process_iter_next_call() is called when verifier gets to iterator's next
* "method" (e.g., bpf_iter_num_next() for numbers iterator) call. We'll refer
* to it as just "iter_next()" in comments below.
@@ -8059,12 +8068,10 @@ static int process_iter_next_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx,
struct bpf_verifier_state *cur_st = env->cur_state, *queued_st, *prev_st;
struct bpf_func_state *cur_fr = cur_st->frame[cur_st->curframe], *queued_fr;
struct bpf_reg_state *cur_iter, *queued_iter;
- int iter_frameno = meta->iter.frameno;
- int iter_spi = meta->iter.spi;
BTF_TYPE_EMIT(struct bpf_iter);
- cur_iter = &env->cur_state->frame[iter_frameno]->stack[iter_spi].spilled_ptr;
+ cur_iter = get_iter_from_state(cur_st, meta);
if (cur_iter->iter.state != BPF_ITER_STATE_ACTIVE &&
cur_iter->iter.state != BPF_ITER_STATE_DRAINED) {
@@ -8092,7 +8099,7 @@ static int process_iter_next_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx,
if (!queued_st)
return -ENOMEM;
- queued_iter = &queued_st->frame[iter_frameno]->stack[iter_spi].spilled_ptr;
+ queued_iter = get_iter_from_state(queued_st, meta);
queued_iter->iter.state = BPF_ITER_STATE_ACTIVE;
queued_iter->iter.depth++;
if (prev_st)
@@ -12654,6 +12661,17 @@ static int check_kfunc_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn,
regs[BPF_REG_0].btf = desc_btf;
regs[BPF_REG_0].type = PTR_TO_BTF_ID;
regs[BPF_REG_0].btf_id = ptr_type_id;
+
+ if (is_iter_next_kfunc(&meta)) {
+ struct bpf_reg_state *cur_iter;
+
+ cur_iter = get_iter_from_state(env->cur_state, &meta);
+
+ if (cur_iter->type & MEM_RCU) /* KF_RCU_PROTECTED */
+ regs[BPF_REG_0].type |= MEM_RCU;
+ else
+ regs[BPF_REG_0].type |= PTR_TRUSTED;
+ }
}
if (is_kfunc_ret_null(&meta)) {
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* [PATCH AUTOSEL 6.10 197/197] bpf: Fix a sdiv overflow issue
[not found] <20240925115823.1303019-1-sashal@kernel.org>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2024-09-25 11:53 ` [PATCH AUTOSEL 6.10 196/197] bpftool: Fix undefined behavior in qsort(NULL, 0, ...) Sasha Levin
@ 2024-09-25 11:53 ` Sasha Levin
3 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Sasha Levin @ 2024-09-25 11:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel, stable
Cc: Yonghong Song, Zac Ecob, Andrii Nakryiko, Alexei Starovoitov,
Sasha Levin, daniel, bpf
From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
[ Upstream commit 7dd34d7b7dcf9309fc6224caf4dd5b35bedddcb7 ]
Zac Ecob reported a problem where a bpf program may cause kernel crash due
to the following error:
Oops: divide error: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN PTI
The failure is due to the below signed divide:
LLONG_MIN/-1 where LLONG_MIN equals to -9,223,372,036,854,775,808.
LLONG_MIN/-1 is supposed to give a positive number 9,223,372,036,854,775,808,
but it is impossible since for 64-bit system, the maximum positive
number is 9,223,372,036,854,775,807. On x86_64, LLONG_MIN/-1 will
cause a kernel exception. On arm64, the result for LLONG_MIN/-1 is
LLONG_MIN.
Further investigation found all the following sdiv/smod cases may trigger
an exception when bpf program is running on x86_64 platform:
- LLONG_MIN/-1 for 64bit operation
- INT_MIN/-1 for 32bit operation
- LLONG_MIN%-1 for 64bit operation
- INT_MIN%-1 for 32bit operation
where -1 can be an immediate or in a register.
On arm64, there are no exceptions:
- LLONG_MIN/-1 = LLONG_MIN
- INT_MIN/-1 = INT_MIN
- LLONG_MIN%-1 = 0
- INT_MIN%-1 = 0
where -1 can be an immediate or in a register.
Insn patching is needed to handle the above cases and the patched codes
produced results aligned with above arm64 result. The below are pseudo
codes to handle sdiv/smod exceptions including both divisor -1 and divisor 0
and the divisor is stored in a register.
sdiv:
tmp = rX
tmp += 1 /* [-1, 0] -> [0, 1]
if tmp >(unsigned) 1 goto L2
if tmp == 0 goto L1
rY = 0
L1:
rY = -rY;
goto L3
L2:
rY /= rX
L3:
smod:
tmp = rX
tmp += 1 /* [-1, 0] -> [0, 1]
if tmp >(unsigned) 1 goto L1
if tmp == 1 (is64 ? goto L2 : goto L3)
rY = 0;
goto L2
L1:
rY %= rX
L2:
goto L4 // only when !is64
L3:
wY = wY // only when !is64
L4:
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/tPJLTEh7S_DxFEqAI2Ji5MBSoZVg7_G-Py2iaZpAaWtM961fFTWtsnlzwvTbzBzaUzwQAoNATXKUlt0LZOFgnDcIyKCswAnAGdUF3LBrhGQ=@protonmail.com/
Reported-by: Zac Ecob <zacecob@protonmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240913150326.1187788-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 93 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 89 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 2eff14da6bf16..c713ca32ab046 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -19927,13 +19927,46 @@ static int do_misc_fixups(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
/* Convert BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64 to 32-bit ALU */
insn->code = BPF_ALU | BPF_OP(insn->code) | BPF_SRC(insn->code);
- /* Make divide-by-zero exceptions impossible. */
+ /* Make sdiv/smod divide-by-minus-one exceptions impossible. */
+ if ((insn->code == (BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_K) ||
+ insn->code == (BPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_K) ||
+ insn->code == (BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD | BPF_K) ||
+ insn->code == (BPF_ALU | BPF_DIV | BPF_K)) &&
+ insn->off == 1 && insn->imm == -1) {
+ bool is64 = BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64;
+ bool isdiv = BPF_OP(insn->code) == BPF_DIV;
+ struct bpf_insn *patchlet;
+ struct bpf_insn chk_and_sdiv[] = {
+ BPF_RAW_INSN((is64 ? BPF_ALU64 : BPF_ALU) |
+ BPF_NEG | BPF_K, insn->dst_reg,
+ 0, 0, 0),
+ };
+ struct bpf_insn chk_and_smod[] = {
+ BPF_MOV32_IMM(insn->dst_reg, 0),
+ };
+
+ patchlet = isdiv ? chk_and_sdiv : chk_and_smod;
+ cnt = isdiv ? ARRAY_SIZE(chk_and_sdiv) : ARRAY_SIZE(chk_and_smod);
+
+ new_prog = bpf_patch_insn_data(env, i + delta, patchlet, cnt);
+ if (!new_prog)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ delta += cnt - 1;
+ env->prog = prog = new_prog;
+ insn = new_prog->insnsi + i + delta;
+ goto next_insn;
+ }
+
+ /* Make divide-by-zero and divide-by-minus-one exceptions impossible. */
if (insn->code == (BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_X) ||
insn->code == (BPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_X) ||
insn->code == (BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD | BPF_X) ||
insn->code == (BPF_ALU | BPF_DIV | BPF_X)) {
bool is64 = BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64;
bool isdiv = BPF_OP(insn->code) == BPF_DIV;
+ bool is_sdiv = isdiv && insn->off == 1;
+ bool is_smod = !isdiv && insn->off == 1;
struct bpf_insn *patchlet;
struct bpf_insn chk_and_div[] = {
/* [R,W]x div 0 -> 0 */
@@ -19953,10 +19986,62 @@ static int do_misc_fixups(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 1),
BPF_MOV32_REG(insn->dst_reg, insn->dst_reg),
};
+ struct bpf_insn chk_and_sdiv[] = {
+ /* [R,W]x sdiv 0 -> 0
+ * LLONG_MIN sdiv -1 -> LLONG_MIN
+ * INT_MIN sdiv -1 -> INT_MIN
+ */
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_AX, insn->src_reg),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN((is64 ? BPF_ALU64 : BPF_ALU) |
+ BPF_ADD | BPF_K, BPF_REG_AX,
+ 0, 0, 1),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN((is64 ? BPF_JMP : BPF_JMP32) |
+ BPF_JGT | BPF_K, BPF_REG_AX,
+ 0, 4, 1),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN((is64 ? BPF_JMP : BPF_JMP32) |
+ BPF_JEQ | BPF_K, BPF_REG_AX,
+ 0, 1, 0),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN((is64 ? BPF_ALU64 : BPF_ALU) |
+ BPF_MOV | BPF_K, insn->dst_reg,
+ 0, 0, 0),
+ /* BPF_NEG(LLONG_MIN) == -LLONG_MIN == LLONG_MIN */
+ BPF_RAW_INSN((is64 ? BPF_ALU64 : BPF_ALU) |
+ BPF_NEG | BPF_K, insn->dst_reg,
+ 0, 0, 0),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 1),
+ *insn,
+ };
+ struct bpf_insn chk_and_smod[] = {
+ /* [R,W]x mod 0 -> [R,W]x */
+ /* [R,W]x mod -1 -> 0 */
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_AX, insn->src_reg),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN((is64 ? BPF_ALU64 : BPF_ALU) |
+ BPF_ADD | BPF_K, BPF_REG_AX,
+ 0, 0, 1),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN((is64 ? BPF_JMP : BPF_JMP32) |
+ BPF_JGT | BPF_K, BPF_REG_AX,
+ 0, 3, 1),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN((is64 ? BPF_JMP : BPF_JMP32) |
+ BPF_JEQ | BPF_K, BPF_REG_AX,
+ 0, 3 + (is64 ? 0 : 1), 1),
+ BPF_MOV32_IMM(insn->dst_reg, 0),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 1),
+ *insn,
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 1),
+ BPF_MOV32_REG(insn->dst_reg, insn->dst_reg),
+ };
- patchlet = isdiv ? chk_and_div : chk_and_mod;
- cnt = isdiv ? ARRAY_SIZE(chk_and_div) :
- ARRAY_SIZE(chk_and_mod) - (is64 ? 2 : 0);
+ if (is_sdiv) {
+ patchlet = chk_and_sdiv;
+ cnt = ARRAY_SIZE(chk_and_sdiv);
+ } else if (is_smod) {
+ patchlet = chk_and_smod;
+ cnt = ARRAY_SIZE(chk_and_smod) - (is64 ? 2 : 0);
+ } else {
+ patchlet = isdiv ? chk_and_div : chk_and_mod;
+ cnt = isdiv ? ARRAY_SIZE(chk_and_div) :
+ ARRAY_SIZE(chk_and_mod) - (is64 ? 2 : 0);
+ }
new_prog = bpf_patch_insn_data(env, i + delta, patchlet, cnt);
if (!new_prog)
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread