public inbox for netdev@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@gmail.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	hagen@jauu.net, wirelesser@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@vsecurity.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] filter: add a security check at install time
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 09:53:20 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1291280000.2871.16.camel@edumazet-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim8+9AA61HwcCQp3p7cSjzaTqerdd4Wtm-28kAt@mail.gmail.com>

Le jeudi 02 décembre 2010 à 16:11 +0800, Changli Gao a écrit :

> It seems correct to me now.
> 
> Acked-by: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@gmail.com>
> 

Thanks for reviewing Changli.

Now I am thinking about not denying the filter installation, but change
the problematic LOAD M(1)  and LOADX M(1)  by LOADI #0 (BPF_S_LD_IMM
K=0) and LOADIX #0 (BPF_S_LDX_IMM K=0)

(ie pretend the value of memory is 0, not a random value taken from
stack)


[PATCH v3 net-next-2.6] filter: add a security check at install time

We added some security checks in commit 57fe93b374a6
(filter: make sure filters dont read uninitialized memory) to close a
potential leak of kernel information to user.

This added a potential extra cost at run time, while we can perform a
check of the filter itself, to make sure a malicious user doesnt try to
abuse us.

This patch adds a check_loads() function, whole unique purpose is to
make this check, allocating a temporary array of mask. We scan the
filter and propagate a bitmask information, telling us if a load M(K) is
allowed because a previous store M(K) is guaranteed. 

If we detect a problematic load M(K), we replace it by a load of
immediate value 0

Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@vsecurity.com>
Cc: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@gmail.com>
---
v3: replace problematic loads M(K) by load of immediate 0 value,
    dont report an error to user.
v2: set memvalid to ~0 on JMP instructions

 net/core/filter.c |   78 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 69 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
index a44d27f..4456a6c 100644
--- a/net/core/filter.c
+++ b/net/core/filter.c
@@ -166,11 +166,9 @@ unsigned int sk_run_filter(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct sock_filter *fentry
 	u32 A = 0;			/* Accumulator */
 	u32 X = 0;			/* Index Register */
 	u32 mem[BPF_MEMWORDS];		/* Scratch Memory Store */
-	unsigned long memvalid = 0;
 	u32 tmp;
 	int k;
 
-	BUILD_BUG_ON(BPF_MEMWORDS > BITS_PER_LONG);
 	/*
 	 * Process array of filter instructions.
 	 */
@@ -318,12 +316,10 @@ load_b:
 			X = K;
 			continue;
 		case BPF_S_LD_MEM:
-			A = (memvalid & (1UL << K)) ?
-				mem[K] : 0;
+			A = mem[K];
 			continue;
 		case BPF_S_LDX_MEM:
-			X = (memvalid & (1UL << K)) ?
-				mem[K] : 0;
+			X = mem[K];
 			continue;
 		case BPF_S_MISC_TAX:
 			X = A;
@@ -336,11 +332,9 @@ load_b:
 		case BPF_S_RET_A:
 			return A;
 		case BPF_S_ST:
-			memvalid |= 1UL << K;
 			mem[K] = A;
 			continue;
 		case BPF_S_STX:
-			memvalid |= 1UL << K;
 			mem[K] = X;
 			continue;
 		default:
@@ -419,6 +413,72 @@ load_b:
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(sk_run_filter);
 
+/*
+ * Security :
+ * A BPF program is able to use 16 cells of memory to store intermediate
+ * values (check u32 mem[BPF_MEMWORDS] in sk_run_filter())
+ * As we dont want to clear mem[] array for each packet going through
+ * sk_run_filter(), we check that filter loaded by user never try to read
+ * a cell if not previously written, and we check all branches to be sure
+ * a malicious user doesnt try to abuse us.
+ * If such malicious (or buggy) read is detected, its replaced by a
+ * load of immediate zero value.
+ */
+static int check_load_and_stores(struct sock_filter *filter, int flen)
+{
+	u16 *masks, memvalid = 0; /* one bit per cell, 16 cells */
+	int pc;
+
+	BUILD_BUG_ON(BPF_MEMWORDS > 16);
+	masks = kmalloc(flen * sizeof(*masks), GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (!masks)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+	memset(masks, 0xff, flen * sizeof(*masks));
+
+	for (pc = 0; pc < flen; pc++) {
+		memvalid &= masks[pc];
+
+		switch (filter[pc].code) {
+		case BPF_S_ST:
+		case BPF_S_STX:
+			memvalid |= (1 << filter[pc].k);
+			break;
+		case BPF_S_LD_MEM:
+			if (!(memvalid & (1 << filter[pc].k))) {
+				filter[pc].code = BPF_S_LD_IMM;
+				filter[pc].k = 0;
+			}
+			break;
+		case BPF_S_LDX_MEM:
+			if (!(memvalid & (1 << filter[pc].k))) {
+				filter[pc].code = BPF_S_LDX_IMM;
+				filter[pc].k = 0;
+			}
+			break;
+		case BPF_S_JMP_JA:
+			/* a jump must set masks on target */
+			masks[pc + 1 + filter[pc].k] &= memvalid;
+			memvalid = ~0;
+			break;
+		case BPF_S_JMP_JEQ_K:
+		case BPF_S_JMP_JEQ_X:
+		case BPF_S_JMP_JGE_K:
+		case BPF_S_JMP_JGE_X:
+		case BPF_S_JMP_JGT_K:
+		case BPF_S_JMP_JGT_X:
+		case BPF_S_JMP_JSET_X:
+		case BPF_S_JMP_JSET_K:
+			/* a jump must set masks on targets */
+			masks[pc + 1 + filter[pc].jt] &= memvalid;
+			masks[pc + 1 + filter[pc].jf] &= memvalid;
+			memvalid = ~0;
+			break;
+		}
+	}
+	kfree(masks);
+	return 0;
+}
+
 /**
  *	sk_chk_filter - verify socket filter code
  *	@filter: filter to verify
@@ -547,7 +607,7 @@ int sk_chk_filter(struct sock_filter *filter, int flen)
 	switch (filter[flen - 1].code) {
 	case BPF_S_RET_K:
 	case BPF_S_RET_A:
-		return 0;
+		return check_load_and_stores(filter, flen);
 	}
 	return -EINVAL;
 }



  reply	other threads:[~2010-12-02  8:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-11-30  9:22 multi bpf filter will impact performance? Rui
2010-11-30  9:34 ` Eric Dumazet
     [not found]   ` <AANLkTi=VpmnrXTBNV7McQm6mq9ULT7KTKbM8_hLPoL=2@mail.gmail.com>
     [not found]     ` <1291127670.2904.96.camel@edumazet-laptop>
2010-12-01  3:48       ` Rui
2010-12-01  4:03         ` Eric Dumazet
2010-12-01  7:45           ` [PATCH net-next-2.6] filter: add SKF_AD_RXHASH and SKF_AD_CPU Eric Dumazet
2010-12-01  8:03             ` Changli Gao
2010-12-06 21:02             ` David Miller
2010-12-03  9:40           ` multi bpf filter will impact performance? Junchang Wang
2010-12-01  7:36         ` Changli Gao
2010-12-01  7:47           ` Eric Dumazet
2010-12-01  7:59             ` Changli Gao
2010-12-01  8:09               ` Eric Dumazet
2010-12-01  8:15                 ` Changli Gao
2010-12-01  8:42                   ` Eric Dumazet
2010-12-01 17:22                     ` Hagen Paul Pfeifer
2010-12-01 18:18                       ` David Miller
2010-12-01 18:24                         ` David Miller
2010-12-01 18:24                         ` Eric Dumazet
2010-12-01 18:44                           ` David Miller
2010-12-01 19:48                             ` Eric Dumazet
2010-12-01 20:23                               ` David Miller
2010-12-01 20:45                                 ` [PATCH net-next-2.6] filter: add a security check at install time Eric Dumazet
2010-12-02  2:30                                   ` Changli Gao
2010-12-02  6:46                                     ` Eric Dumazet
2010-12-02  8:11                                       ` Changli Gao
2010-12-02  8:53                                         ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2010-12-02  9:00                                           ` Eric Dumazet
2010-12-02  9:10                                             ` Changli Gao
2010-12-02  9:54                                               ` Eric Dumazet
2010-12-02 10:10                                                 ` Changli Gao
2010-12-02 11:15                                                   ` Eric Dumazet
2010-12-02 11:29                                                     ` Changli Gao
2010-12-02 13:14                                                       ` Eric Dumazet
2010-12-02 10:59                                             ` Changli Gao
2010-12-06 21:07                                       ` David Miller
2010-12-03  6:32                         ` multi bpf filter will impact performance? Eric Dumazet
2010-12-05 20:53                           ` PATCH] filter: fix sk_filter rcu handling Eric Dumazet
2010-12-05 21:08                             ` Andi Kleen
2010-12-05 21:28                               ` Eric Dumazet
2010-12-06 17:29                             ` David Miller
2010-11-30 10:01 ` multi bpf filter will impact performance? Eric Dumazet
2010-11-30 11:17 ` Eric Dumazet

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=1291280000.2871.16.camel@edumazet-laptop \
    --to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=drosenberg@vsecurity.com \
    --cc=hagen@jauu.net \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=wirelesser@gmail.com \
    --cc=xiaosuo@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