bpf: prevent out-of-bounds speculation

Under speculation, CPUs may mis-predict branches in bounds checks. Thus,
memory accesses under a bounds check may be speculated even if the
bounds check fails, providing a primitive for building a side channel.

To avoid leaking kernel data round up array-based maps and mask the index
after bounds check, so speculated load with out of bounds index will load
either valid value from the array or zero from the padded area.

Unconditionally mask index for all array types even when max_entries
are not rounded to power of 2 for root user.
When map is created by unpriv user generate a sequence of bpf insns
that includes AND operation to make sure that JITed code includes
the same 'index & index_mask' operation.

If prog_array map is created by unpriv user replace
  bpf_tail_call(ctx, map, index);
with
  if (index >= max_entries) {
    index &= map->index_mask;
    bpf_tail_call(ctx, map, index);
  }
(along with roundup to power 2) to prevent out-of-bounds speculation.
There is secondary redundant 'if (index >= max_entries)' in the interpreter
and in all JITs, but they can be optimized later if necessary.

Other array-like maps (cpumap, devmap, sockmap, perf_event_array, cgroup_array)
cannot be used by unpriv, so no changes there.

That fixes bpf side of "Variant 1: bounds check bypass (CVE-2017-5753)" on
all architectures with and without JIT.

v2->v3:
Daniel noticed that attack potentially can be crafted via syscall commands
without loading the program, so add masking to those paths as well.

Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

1 files changed, 36 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 04b24876cd23..b414d6b2d470 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -1729,6 +1729,13 @@ static int check_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int func_id, int insn_idx)
 	err = check_func_arg(env, BPF_REG_2, fn->arg2_type, &meta);
 	if (err)
 		return err;
+	if (func_id == BPF_FUNC_tail_call) {
+		if (meta.map_ptr == NULL) {
+			verbose(env, "verifier bug\n");
+			return -EINVAL;
+		}
+		env->insn_aux_data[insn_idx].map_ptr = meta.map_ptr;
+	}
 	err = check_func_arg(env, BPF_REG_3, fn->arg3_type, &meta);
 	if (err)
 		return err;
@@ -4456,6 +4463,35 @@ static int fixup_bpf_calls(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 			 */
 			insn->imm = 0;
 			insn->code = BPF_JMP | BPF_TAIL_CALL;
+
+			/* instead of changing every JIT dealing with tail_call
+			 * emit two extra insns:
+			 * if (index >= max_entries) goto out;
+			 * index &= array->index_mask;
+			 * to avoid out-of-bounds cpu speculation
+			 */
+			map_ptr = env->insn_aux_data[i + delta].map_ptr;
+			if (map_ptr == BPF_MAP_PTR_POISON) {
+				verbose(env, "tail_call obusing map_ptr\n");
+				return -EINVAL;
+			}
+			if (!map_ptr->unpriv_array)
+				continue;
+			insn_buf[0] = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGE, BPF_REG_3,
+						  map_ptr->max_entries, 2);
+			insn_buf[1] = BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_3,
+						    container_of(map_ptr,
+								 struct bpf_array,
+								 map)->index_mask);
+			insn_buf[2] = *insn;
+			cnt = 3;
+			new_prog = bpf_patch_insn_data(env, i + delta, insn_buf, cnt);
+			if (!new_prog)
+				return -ENOMEM;
+
+			delta    += cnt - 1;
+			env->prog = prog = new_prog;
+			insn      = new_prog->insnsi + i + delta;
 			continue;
 		}