From: sdf@google.com
To: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
andrii@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev, song@kernel.org,
yhs@fb.com, john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org,
haoluo@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org,
syzbot+5cc0730bd4b4d2c5f152@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf: check attach_func_proto more carefully in check_return_code
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2022 12:18:33 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YscxieVQayT2cVgi@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220707181451.6xdtdesokuetj4ud@kafai-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
On 07/07, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 09:02:33AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > Syzkaller reports the following crash:
> > RIP: 0010:check_return_code kernel/bpf/verifier.c:10575 [inline]
> > RIP: 0010:do_check kernel/bpf/verifier.c:12346 [inline]
> > RIP: 0010:do_check_common+0xb3d2/0xd250 kernel/bpf/verifier.c:14610
> >
> > With the following reproducer:
> > bpf$PROG_LOAD_XDP(0x5, &(0x7f00000004c0)={0xd, 0x3,
> &(0x7f0000000000)=ANY=[@ANYBLOB="1800000000000019000000000000000095"],
> &(0x7f0000000300)='GPL\x00', 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, '\x00', 0x0, 0x2b,
> 0xffffffffffffffff, 0x8, 0x0, 0x0, 0x10, 0x0}, 0x80)
> >
> > Because we don't enforce expected_attach_type for XDP programs,
> > we end up in hitting 'if (prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_LSM_CGROUP'
> > part in check_return_code and follow up with testing
> > `prog->aux->attach_func_proto->type`, but `prog->aux->attach_func_proto`
> > is NULL.
> >
> > Add explicit prog_type check for the "Note, BPF_LSM_CGROUP that
> > attach ..." condition. Also, don't skip return code check for
> > LSM/STRUCT_OPS.
> >
> > The above actually brings an issue with existing selftest which
> > tries to return EPERM from void inet_csk_clone. Fix the
> > test (and move called_socket_clone to make sure it's not
> > incremented in case of an error) and add a new one to explicitly
> > verify this condition.
> >
> > v2:
> > - Martin: don't add new helper, check prog_type instead
> > - Martin: check expected_attach_type as well at the function entry
> > - Update selftest to verify this condition
> >
> > Fixes: 69fd337a975c ("bpf: per-cgroup lsm flavor")
> > Reported-by: syzbot+5cc0730bd4b4d2c5f152@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 2 ++
> > .../testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/lsm_cgroup.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lsm_cgroup.c | 12 ++++++------
> > .../selftests/bpf/progs/lsm_cgroup_nonvoid.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> > 4 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > create mode 100644
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lsm_cgroup_nonvoid.c
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > index df3ec6b05f05..2bc1e7252778 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > @@ -10445,6 +10445,7 @@ static int check_return_code(struct
> bpf_verifier_env *env)
> >
> > /* LSM and struct_ops func-ptr's return type could be "void" */
> > if (!is_subprog &&
> > + prog->expected_attach_type != BPF_LSM_CGROUP &&
> BPF_PROG_TYPE_STRUCT_OPS also uses the expected_attach_type,
> so the expected_attach_type check should only be done for LSM prog alone.
> Others lgtm.
In this case, something like the following should be sufficient?
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 2bc1e7252778..6702a5fc12e6 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -10445,11 +10445,13 @@ static int check_return_code(struct
bpf_verifier_env *env)
/* LSM and struct_ops func-ptr's return type could be "void" */
if (!is_subprog &&
- prog->expected_attach_type != BPF_LSM_CGROUP &&
- (prog_type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_STRUCT_OPS ||
- prog_type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM) &&
- !prog->aux->attach_func_proto->type)
- return 0;
+ !prog->aux->attach_func_proto->type) {
+ if (prog_type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_STRUCT_OPS)
+ return 0;
+ if (prog_type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM &&
+ prog->expected_attach_type != BPF_LSM_CGROUP)
+ return 0;
+ }
/* eBPF calling convention is such that R0 is used
* to return the value from eBPF program.
> > (prog_type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_STRUCT_OPS ||
> > prog_type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM) &&
> > !prog->aux->attach_func_proto->type)
> > @@ -10572,6 +10573,7 @@ static int check_return_code(struct
> bpf_verifier_env *env)
> > if (!tnum_in(range, reg->var_off)) {
> > verbose_invalid_scalar(env, reg, &range, "program exit", "R0");
> > if (prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_LSM_CGROUP &&
> > + prog_type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM &&
> > !prog->aux->attach_func_proto->type)
> > verbose(env, "Note, BPF_LSM_CGROUP that attach to void LSM hooks
> can't modify return value!\n");
> > return -EINVAL;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-07 19:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-07-07 16:02 [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf: check attach_func_proto more carefully in check_return_code Stanislav Fomichev
2022-07-07 18:14 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2022-07-07 19:18 ` sdf [this message]
2022-07-07 22:08 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2022-07-07 23:07 ` Stanislav Fomichev
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=YscxieVQayT2cVgi@google.com \
--to=sdf@google.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kafai@fb.com \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=syzbot+5cc0730bd4b4d2c5f152@syzkaller.appspotmail.com \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox