From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
To: "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: <daniel@iogearbox.net>, <ecree@solarflare.com>,
<anatoly.trosinenko@gmail.com>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
<kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf 3/3] bpf: add per-insn complexity limit
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 22:46:06 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181204064606.803625-4-ast@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181204064606.803625-1-ast@kernel.org>
malicious bpf program may try to force the verifier to remember
a lot of distinct verifier states.
Put a limit to number of per-insn 'struct bpf_verifier_state'.
Note that hitting the limit doesn't reject the program.
It potentially makes the verifier do more steps to analyze the program.
It means that malicious programs will hit BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_INSNS sooner
instead of spending cpu time walking long link list.
The limit of BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_STATES==64 affects cilium progs
with slight increase in number of "steps" it takes to successfully verify
the programs:
before after
bpf_lb-DLB_L3.o 1940 1940
bpf_lb-DLB_L4.o 3089 3089
bpf_lb-DUNKNOWN.o 1065 1065
bpf_lxc-DDROP_ALL.o 28052 | 28162
bpf_lxc-DUNKNOWN.o 35487 | 35541
bpf_netdev.o 10864 10864
bpf_overlay.o 6643 6643
bpf_lcx_jit.o 38437 38437
But it also makes malicious program to be rejected in 0.4 seconds vs 6.5
Hence apply this limit to unprivileged programs only.
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 7 ++++++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 55a49703f423..fc760d00a38c 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -175,6 +175,7 @@ struct bpf_verifier_stack_elem {
#define BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_INSNS 131072
#define BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_STACK 1024
+#define BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_STATES 64
#define BPF_MAP_PTR_UNPRIV 1UL
#define BPF_MAP_PTR_POISON ((void *)((0xeB9FUL << 1) + \
@@ -5047,7 +5048,7 @@ static int is_state_visited(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx)
struct bpf_verifier_state_list *new_sl;
struct bpf_verifier_state_list *sl;
struct bpf_verifier_state *cur = env->cur_state, *new;
- int i, j, err;
+ int i, j, err, states_cnt = 0;
sl = env->explored_states[insn_idx];
if (!sl)
@@ -5074,8 +5075,12 @@ static int is_state_visited(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx)
return 1;
}
sl = sl->next;
+ states_cnt++;
}
+ if (!env->allow_ptr_leaks && states_cnt > BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_STATES)
+ return 0;
+
/* there were no equivalent states, remember current one.
* technically the current state is not proven to be safe yet,
* but it will either reach outer most bpf_exit (which means it's safe)
--
2.17.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-04 6:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-04 6:46 [PATCH bpf 0/3] bpf: improve verifier resilience Alexei Starovoitov
2018-12-04 6:46 ` [PATCH bpf 1/3] bpf: check pending signals while verifying programs Alexei Starovoitov
2018-12-04 6:46 ` [PATCH bpf 2/3] bpf: improve verifier branch analysis Alexei Starovoitov
2018-12-04 6:46 ` Alexei Starovoitov [this message]
2018-12-04 16:23 ` [PATCH bpf 0/3] bpf: improve verifier resilience Daniel Borkmann
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=20181204064606.803625-4-ast@kernel.org \
--to=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=anatoly.trosinenko@gmail.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=ecree@solarflare.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).