Re: [PATCH bpf v2] bpf: verifier: prevent userspace memory access

[Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com>]

Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 4:05 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 3:11 AM Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > diff --git a/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>> > index e613eebfd349..e61a51a5b4be 100644
>> > --- a/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>> > +++ b/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>> > @@ -2691,3 +2691,8 @@ bool bpf_jit_supports_subprog_tailcalls(void)
>> >  {
>> >         return true;
>> >  }
>> > +
>> > +u64 bpf_arch_uaddress_limit(void)
>> > +{
>> > +       return -ENOTSUPP;
>> > +}
>>
>> Looks good and should work, but s390 CI is still not happy.
>> Ideas?
>> sock tests were not failing before. So something is going on.
>
> I think I have an explanation.
> -ENOTSUPP and u64... and later:
> u64 uaddress_limit = bpf_arch_uaddress_limit()
> if (uaddress_limit < 0)
>
> I bet the compiler simply removes this check since unsigned cannot
> be negative.
> Odd that there is no compiler warning.
>
> pw-bot: cr
>

Yes, I verified that the compiler is removing this:


                if (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_LDX &&
    a944:       7100047f        cmp     w3, #0x1
    a948:       540013e1        b.ne    abc4 <do_misc_fixups+0x66c>  // b.any
    a94c:       721a041f        tst     w0, #0xc0
    a950:       54fff4e1        b.ne    a7ec <do_misc_fixups+0x294>  // b.any
                        u64 uaddress_limit = bpf_arch_uaddress_limit();
    a954:       b90003e6        str     w6, [sp]
    a958:       94000000        bl      0 <bpf_arch_uaddress_limit>
                        *patch++ = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_AX, insn->src_reg);


We should do:
   if (!uaddress_limit)
        goto next_insn;

and in the disabled case return 0 in place of -ENOSUPP.

Doing this adds the check:


             if (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_LDX &&
    a944:       7100047f        cmp     w3, #0x1
    a948:       54001401        b.ne    abc8 <do_misc_fixups+0x670>  // b.any
    a94c:       721a041f        tst     w0, #0xc0
    a950:       54fff4e1        b.ne    a7ec <do_misc_fixups+0x294>  // b.any
                        u64 uaddress_limit = bpf_arch_uaddress_limit();
    a954:       b90003e6        str     w6, [sp]
    a958:       94000000        bl      0 <bpf_arch_uaddress_limit>
                        if (!uaddress_limit)
    a95c:       b4fff020        cbz     x0, a760 <do_misc_fixups+0x208>
                        *patch++ = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_AX, insn->src_reg);



I will send v3 with this approach.


Thanks,
Puranjay