Re: [PATCH v1 bpf-next 5/7] bpf: Consider non-owning refs to refcounted nodes RCU protected

David Marchevsky
2023-08-04T07:04:33Z

On 8/2/23 6:50 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 01:36:28PM -0700, Dave Marchevsky wrote:
>> The previous patch in the series ensures that the underlying memory of
>> nodes with bpf_refcount - which can have multiple owners - is not reused
>> until RCU Tasks Trace grace period has elapsed. This prevents
>
> Here and in the cover letter... above should probably be "RCU grace period"
> and not "RCU tasks trace grace period".
> bpf progs will reuse objects after normal RCU.
> We're waiting for RCU tasks trace GP to free into slab.
>

Will fix.

>> use-after-free with non-owning references that may point to
>> recently-freed memory. While RCU read lock is held, it's safe to
>> dereference such a non-owning ref, as by definition RCU GP couldn't have
>> elapsed and therefore underlying memory couldn't have been reused.
>>
>> From the perspective of verifier "trustedness" non-owning refs to
>> refcounted nodes are now trusted only in RCU CS and therefore should no
>> longer pass is_trusted_reg, but rather is_rcu_reg. Let's mark them
>> MEM_RCU in order to reflect this new state.
>>
>> Similarly to bpf_spin_unlock being a non-owning ref invalidation point,
>> where non-owning ref reg states are clobbered so that they cannot be
>> used outside of the critical section, currently all MEM_RCU regs are
>> marked untrusted after bpf_rcu_read_unlock. This patch makes
>> bpf_rcu_read_unlock a non-owning ref invalidation point as well,
>> clobbering the non-owning refs instead of marking untrusted. In the
>> future we may want to allow untrusted non-owning refs in which case we
>> can remove this custom logic without breaking BPF programs as it's more
>> restrictive than the default. That's a big change in semantics, though,
>> and this series is focused on fixing the use-after-free in most
>> straightforward way.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>
>> ---
>> include/linux/bpf.h | 3 ++-
>> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 17 +++++++++++++++--
>> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
>> index ceaa8c23287f..37fba01b061a 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/bpf.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
>> @@ -653,7 +653,8 @@ enum bpf_type_flag {
>> MEM_RCU = BIT(13 + BPF_BASE_TYPE_BITS),
>>
>> /* Used to tag PTR_TO_BTF_ID | MEM_ALLOC references which are non-owning.
>> - * Currently only valid for linked-list and rbtree nodes.
>> + * Currently only valid for linked-list and rbtree nodes. If the nodes
>> + * have a bpf_refcount_field, they must be tagged MEM_RCU as well.
>> */
>> NON_OWN_REF = BIT(14 + BPF_BASE_TYPE_BITS),
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> index 9014b469dd9d..4bda365000d3 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> @@ -469,7 +469,8 @@ static bool type_is_ptr_alloc_obj(u32 type)
>>
>> static bool type_is_non_owning_ref(u32 type)
>> {
>> - return type_is_ptr_alloc_obj(type) && type_flag(type) & NON_OWN_REF;
>> + return type_is_ptr_alloc_obj(type) &&
>> + type_flag(type) & NON_OWN_REF;
>> }
>>
>> static struct btf_record *reg_btf_record(const struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
>> @@ -8012,6 +8013,7 @@ int check_func_arg_reg_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>> case PTR_TO_BTF_ID | PTR_TRUSTED:
>> case PTR_TO_BTF_ID | MEM_RCU:
>> case PTR_TO_BTF_ID | MEM_ALLOC | NON_OWN_REF:
>> + case PTR_TO_BTF_ID | MEM_ALLOC | NON_OWN_REF | MEM_RCU:
>> /* When referenced PTR_TO_BTF_ID is passed to release function,
>> * its fixed offset must be 0. In the other cases, fixed offset
>> * can be non-zero. This was already checked above. So pass
>> @@ -10478,6 +10480,7 @@ static int process_kf_arg_ptr_to_btf_id(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>> static int ref_set_non_owning(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
>> {
>> struct bpf_verifier_state *state = env->cur_state;
>> + struct btf_record *rec = reg_btf_record(reg);
>>
>> if (!state->active_lock.ptr) {
>> verbose(env, "verifier internal error: ref_set_non_owning w/o active lock\n");
>> @@ -10490,6 +10493,9 @@ static int ref_set_non_owning(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_reg_state
>> }
>>
>> reg->type |= NON_OWN_REF;
>> + if (rec->refcount_off >= 0)
>> + reg->type |= MEM_RCU;
>> +
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -11327,10 +11333,16 @@ static int check_kfunc_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn,
>> struct bpf_func_state *state;
>> struct bpf_reg_state *reg;
>>
>> + if (in_rbtree_lock_required_cb(env) && (rcu_lock || rcu_unlock)) {
>> + verbose(env, "can't rcu read {lock,unlock} in rbtree cb\n");
>> + return -EACCES;
>> + }
>
> I guess it's ok to prevent cb from calling bpf_rcu_read_lock(), since it's unnecessary,
> but pls make the message more verbose. Like:
> verbose(env, "Calling bpf_rcu_read_{lock,unlock} in unnecessary rbtree callback\n");
>
> so that users know why the verifier complains.
> Technically it's ok to do so. Unnecessary is not a safety issue.
>

Well, for rcu_read_unlock it would be a safety issue, no?
Feels easier to reason about if we can just say "RCU lock is
held for the duration of the callback".

>> +
>> if (rcu_lock) {
>> verbose(env, "nested rcu read lock (kernel function %s)\n", func_name);
>> return -EINVAL;
>> } else if (rcu_unlock) {
>> + invalidate_non_owning_refs(env);
>
> I agree with Yonghong. It probably doesn't belong here.
> rcu lock/unlock and spin_lock/unlock are separate critical sections.
> Since ref_set_non_owning() adds extra MEM_RCU flag nothing extra needs to be done here.
> Below code will make the pointers untrusted.
>

Will change. The desire here was to not loosen constraints
on non-owning ref lifetime in this series. As I mention in
my thoughts on Patch 3 in the cover letter, I do think we can
loosen that in the future, but would like to avoid doing so in this
fixes series. Regardless, because bpf_spin_unlock will
happen before this executes, this line can be removed.

>> bpf_for_each_reg_in_vstate(env->cur_state, state, reg, ({
>> if (reg->type & MEM_RCU) {
>> reg->type &= ~(MEM_RCU | PTR_MAYBE_NULL);
>> @@ -16679,7 +16691,8 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>>
>> - if (env->cur_state->active_rcu_lock) {
>> + if (env->cur_state->active_rcu_lock &&
>> + !in_rbtree_lock_required_cb(env)) {
>
> I'm not following here.
> Didn't you want to prevent bpf_rcu_read_lock/unlock inside cb? Why this change?
> >> verbose(env, "bpf_rcu_read_unlock is missing\n");
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>