kernel/linux.git/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h, branch v4.14.223

bpf: fix sanitation of alu op with pointer / scalar type from different paths

2019-04-20T07:15:09+00:00

commit d3bd7413e0ca40b60cf60d4003246d067cafdeda upstream. While 979d63d50c0c ("bpf: prevent out of bounds speculation on pointer arithmetic") took care of rejecting alu op on pointer when e.g. pointer came from two different map values with different map properties such as value size, Jann reported that a case was not covered yet when a given alu op is used in both "ptr_reg += reg" and "numeric_reg += reg" from different branches where we would incorrectly try to sanitize based on the pointer's limit. Catch this corner case and reject the program instead. Fixes: 979d63d50c0c ("bpf: prevent out of bounds speculation on pointer arithmetic") Reported-by: Jann Horn Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Vallish Vaidyeshwara Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: prevent out of bounds speculation on pointer arithmetic

2019-04-20T07:15:09+00:00

commit 979d63d50c0c0f7bc537bf821e056cc9fe5abd38 upstream. Jann reported that the original commit back in b2157399cc98 ("bpf: prevent out-of-bounds speculation") was not sufficient to stop CPU from speculating out of bounds memory access: While b2157399cc98 only focussed on masking array map access for unprivileged users for tail calls and data access such that the user provided index gets sanitized from BPF program and syscall side, there is still a more generic form affected from BPF programs that applies to most maps that hold user data in relation to dynamic map access when dealing with unknown scalars or "slow" known scalars as access offset, for example: - Load a map value pointer into R6 - Load an index into R7 - Do a slow computation (e.g. with a memory dependency) that loads a limit into R8 (e.g. load the limit from a map for high latency, then mask it to make the verifier happy) - Exit if R7 >= R8 (mispredicted branch) - Load R0 = R6[R7] - Load R0 = R6[R0] For unknown scalars there are two options in the BPF verifier where we could derive knowledge from in order to guarantee safe access to the memory: i) While /<=/>= variants won't allow to derive any lower or upper bounds from the unknown scalar where it would be safe to add it to the map value pointer, it is possible through ==/!= test however. ii) another option is to transform the unknown scalar into a known scalar, for example, through ALU ops combination such as R &= followed by R |= or any similar combination where the original information from the unknown scalar would be destroyed entirely leaving R with a constant. The initial slow load still precedes the latter ALU ops on that register, so the CPU executes speculatively from that point. Once we have the known scalar, any compare operation would work then. A third option only involving registers with known scalars could be crafted as described in [0] where a CPU port (e.g. Slow Int unit) would be filled with many dependent computations such that the subsequent condition depending on its outcome has to wait for evaluation on its execution port and thereby executing speculatively if the speculated code can be scheduled on a different execution port, or any other form of mistraining as described in [1], for example. Given this is not limited to only unknown scalars, not only map but also stack access is affected since both is accessible for unprivileged users and could potentially be used for out of bounds access under speculation. In order to prevent any of these cases, the verifier is now sanitizing pointer arithmetic on the offset such that any out of bounds speculation would be masked in a way where the pointer arithmetic result in the destination register will stay unchanged, meaning offset masked into zero similar as in array_index_nospec() case. With regards to implementation, there are three options that were considered: i) new insn for sanitation, ii) push/pop insn and sanitation as inlined BPF, iii) reuse of ax register and sanitation as inlined BPF. Option i) has the downside that we end up using from reserved bits in the opcode space, but also that we would require each JIT to emit masking as native arch opcodes meaning mitigation would have slow adoption till everyone implements it eventually which is counter-productive. Option ii) and iii) have both in common that a temporary register is needed in order to implement the sanitation as inlined BPF since we are not allowed to modify the source register. While a push / pop insn in ii) would be useful to have in any case, it requires once again that every JIT needs to implement it first. While possible, amount of changes needed would also be unsuitable for a -stable patch. Therefore, the path which has fewer changes, less BPF instructions for the mitigation and does not require anything to be changed in the JITs is option iii) which this work is pursuing. The ax register is already mapped to a register in all JITs (modulo arm32 where it's mapped to stack as various other BPF registers there) and used in constant blinding for JITs-only so far. It can be reused for verifier rewrites under certain constraints. The interpreter's tmp "register" has therefore been remapped into extending the register set with hidden ax register and reusing that for a number of instructions that needed the prior temporary variable internally (e.g. div, mod). This allows for zero increase in stack space usage in the interpreter, and enables (restricted) generic use in rewrites otherwise as long as such a patchlet does not make use of these instructions. The sanitation mask is dynamic and relative to the offset the map value or stack pointer currently holds. There are various cases that need to be taken under consideration for the masking, e.g. such operation could look as follows: ptr += val or val += ptr or ptr -= val. Thus, the value to be sanitized could reside either in source or in destination register, and the limit is different depending on whether the ALU op is addition or subtraction and depending on the current known and bounded offset. The limit is derived as follows: limit := max_value_size - (smin_value + off). For subtraction: limit := umax_value + off. This holds because we do not allow any pointer arithmetic that would temporarily go out of bounds or would have an unknown value with mixed signed bounds where it is unclear at verification time whether the actual runtime value would be either negative or positive. For example, we have a derived map pointer value with constant offset and bounded one, so limit based on smin_value works because the verifier requires that statically analyzed arithmetic on the pointer must be in bounds, and thus it checks if resulting smin_value + off and umax_value + off is still within map value bounds at time of arithmetic in addition to time of access. Similarly, for the case of stack access we derive the limit as follows: MAX_BPF_STACK + off for subtraction and -off for the case of addition where off := ptr_reg->off + ptr_reg->var_off.value. Subtraction is a special case for the masking which can be in form of ptr += -val, ptr -= -val, or ptr -= val. In the first two cases where we know that the value is negative, we need to temporarily negate the value in order to do the sanitation on a positive value where we later swap the ALU op, and restore original source register if the value was in source. The sanitation of pointer arithmetic alone is still not fully sufficient as is, since a scenario like the following could happen ... PTR += 0x1000 (e.g. K-based imm) PTR -= BIG_NUMBER_WITH_SLOW_COMPARISON PTR += 0x1000 PTR -= BIG_NUMBER_WITH_SLOW_COMPARISON [...] ... which under speculation could end up as ... PTR += 0x1000 PTR -= 0 [ truncated by mitigation ] PTR += 0x1000 PTR -= 0 [ truncated by mitigation ] [...] ... and therefore still access out of bounds. To prevent such case, the verifier is also analyzing safety for potential out of bounds access under speculative execution. Meaning, it is also simulating pointer access under truncation. We therefore "branch off" and push the current verification state after the ALU operation with known 0 to the verification stack for later analysis. Given the current path analysis succeeded it is likely that the one under speculation can be pruned. In any case, it is also subject to existing complexity limits and therefore anything beyond this point will be rejected. In terms of pruning, it needs to be ensured that the verification state from speculative execution simulation must never prune a non-speculative execution path, therefore, we mark verifier state accordingly at the time of push_stack(). If verifier detects out of bounds access under speculative execution from one of the possible paths that includes a truncation, it will reject such program. Given we mask every reg-based pointer arithmetic for unprivileged programs, we've been looking into how it could affect real-world programs in terms of size increase. As the majority of programs are targeted for privileged-only use case, we've unconditionally enabled masking (with its alu restrictions on top of it) for privileged programs for the sake of testing in order to check i) whether they get rejected in its current form, and ii) by how much the number of instructions and size will increase. We've tested this by using Katran, Cilium and test_l4lb from the kernel selftests. For Katran we've evaluated balancer_kern.o, Cilium bpf_lxc.o and an older test object bpf_lxc_opt_-DUNKNOWN.o and l4lb we've used test_l4lb.o as well as test_l4lb_noinline.o. We found that none of the programs got rejected by the verifier with this change, and that impact is rather minimal to none. balancer_kern.o had 13,904 bytes (1,738 insns) xlated and 7,797 bytes JITed before and after the change. Most complex program in bpf_lxc.o had 30,544 bytes (3,817 insns) xlated and 18,538 bytes JITed before and after and none of the other tail call programs in bpf_lxc.o had any changes either. For the older bpf_lxc_opt_-DUNKNOWN.o object we found a small increase from 20,616 bytes (2,576 insns) and 12,536 bytes JITed before to 20,664 bytes (2,582 insns) and 12,558 bytes JITed after the change. Other programs from that object file had similar small increase. Both test_l4lb.o had no change and remained at 6,544 bytes (817 insns) xlated and 3,401 bytes JITed and for test_l4lb_noinline.o constant at 5,080 bytes (634 insns) xlated and 3,313 bytes JITed. This can be explained in that LLVM typically optimizes stack based pointer arithmetic by using K-based operations and that use of dynamic map access is not overly frequent. However, in future we may decide to optimize the algorithm further under known guarantees from branch and value speculation. Latter seems also unclear in terms of prediction heuristics that today's CPUs apply as well as whether there could be collisions in e.g. the predictor's Value History/Pattern Table for triggering out of bounds access, thus masking is performed unconditionally at this point but could be subject to relaxation later on. We were generally also brainstorming various other approaches for mitigation, but the blocker was always lack of available registers at runtime and/or overhead for runtime tracking of limits belonging to a specific pointer. Thus, we found this to be minimally intrusive under given constraints. With that in place, a simple example with sanitized access on unprivileged load at post-verification time looks as follows: # bpftool prog dump xlated id 282 [...] 28: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r7 +0) 29: (79) r2 = *(u64 *)(r7 +8) 30: (57) r1 &= 15 31: (79) r3 = *(u64 *)(r0 +4608) 32: (57) r3 &= 1 33: (47) r3 |= 1 34: (2d) if r2 > r3 goto pc+19 35: (b4) (u32) r11 = (u32) 20479 | 36: (1f) r11 -= r2 | Dynamic sanitation for pointer 37: (4f) r11 |= r2 | arithmetic with registers 38: (87) r11 = -r11 | containing bounded or known 39: (c7) r11 s>>= 63 | scalars in order to prevent 40: (5f) r11 &= r2 | out of bounds speculation. 41: (0f) r4 += r11 | 42: (71) r4 = *(u8 *)(r4 +0) 43: (6f) r4 <<= r1 [...] For the case where the scalar sits in the destination register as opposed to the source register, the following code is emitted for the above example: [...] 16: (b4) (u32) r11 = (u32) 20479 17: (1f) r11 -= r2 18: (4f) r11 |= r2 19: (87) r11 = -r11 20: (c7) r11 s>>= 63 21: (5f) r2 &= r11 22: (0f) r2 += r0 23: (61) r0 = *(u32 *)(r2 +0) [...] JIT blinding example with non-conflicting use of r10: [...] d5: je 0x0000000000000106 _ d7: mov 0x0(%rax),%edi | da: mov $0xf153246,%r10d | Index load from map value and e0: xor $0xf153259,%r10 | (const blinded) mask with 0x1f. e7: and %r10,%rdi |_ ea: mov $0x2f,%r10d | f0: sub %rdi,%r10 | Sanitized addition. Both use r10 f3: or %rdi,%r10 | but do not interfere with each f6: neg %r10 | other. (Neither do these instructions f9: sar $0x3f,%r10 | interfere with the use of ax as temp fd: and %r10,%rdi | in interpreter.) 100: add %rax,%rdi |_ 103: mov 0x0(%rdi),%eax [...] Tested that it fixes Jann's reproducer, and also checked that test_verifier and test_progs suite with interpreter, JIT and JIT with hardening enabled on x86-64 and arm64 runs successfully. [0] Speculose: Analyzing the Security Implications of Speculative Execution in CPUs, Giorgi Maisuradze and Christian Rossow, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.04084.pdf [1] A Systematic Evaluation of Transient Execution Attacks and Defenses, Claudio Canella, Jo Van Bulck, Michael Schwarz, Moritz Lipp, Benjamin von Berg, Philipp Ortner, Frank Piessens, Dmitry Evtyushkin, Daniel Gruss, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1811.05441.pdf Fixes: b2157399cc98 ("bpf: prevent out-of-bounds speculation") Reported-by: Jann Horn Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Vallish Vaidyeshwara [some checkpatch cleanups and backported to 4.14 by sblbir] Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: move {prev_,}insn_idx into verifier env

2019-04-20T07:15:08+00:00

commit c08435ec7f2bc8f4109401f696fd55159b4b40cb upstream. Move prev_insn_idx and insn_idx from the do_check() function into the verifier environment, so they can be read inside the various helper functions for handling the instructions. It's easier to put this into the environment rather than changing all call-sites only to pass it along. insn_idx is useful in particular since this later on allows to hold state in env->insn_aux_data[env->insn_idx]. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Vallish Vaidyeshwara [Backported to 4.14 by sblbir] Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: reduce verifier memory consumption

2019-04-20T07:15:08+00:00

commit 638f5b90d46016372a8e3e0a434f199cc5e12b8c upstream. the verifier got progressively smarter over time and size of its internal state grew as well. Time to reduce the memory consumption. Before: sizeof(struct bpf_verifier_state) = 6520 After: sizeof(struct bpf_verifier_state) = 896 It's done by observing that majority of BPF programs use little to no stack whereas verifier kept all of 512 stack slots ready always. Instead dynamically reallocate struct verifier state when stack access is detected. Runtime difference before vs after is within a noise. The number of processed instructions stays the same. Cc: jakub.kicinski@netronome.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: David S. Miller [Backported to 4.14 by sblbir] Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: Prevent memory disambiguation attack

2018-12-05T18:41:10+00:00

commit af86ca4e3088fe5eacf2f7e58c01fa68ca067672 upstream. Detect code patterns where malicious 'speculative store bypass' can be used and sanitize such patterns. 39: (bf) r3 = r10 40: (07) r3 += -216 41: (79) r8 = *(u64 *)(r7 +0) // slow read 42: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -72) = 0 // verifier inserts this instruction 43: (7b) *(u64 *)(r8 +0) = r3 // this store becomes slow due to r8 44: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r6 +0) // cpu speculatively executes this load 45: (71) r2 = *(u8 *)(r1 +0) // speculatively arbitrary 'load byte' // is now sanitized Above code after x86 JIT becomes: e5: mov %rbp,%rdx e8: add $0xffffffffffffff28,%rdx ef: mov 0x0(%r13),%r14 f3: movq $0x0,-0x48(%rbp) fb: mov %rdx,0x0(%r14) ff: mov 0x0(%rbx),%rdi 103: movzbq 0x0(%rdi),%rsi Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner [bwh: Backported to 4.14: - Add bpf_verifier_env parameter to check_stack_write() - Look up stack slot_types with state->stack_slot_type[] rather than state->stack[].slot_type[] - Drop bpf_verifier_env argument to verbose() - Adjust context] Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

bpf: fix partial copy of map_ptr when dst is scalar

2018-11-10T15:48:34+00:00

commit 0962590e553331db2cc0aef2dc35c57f6300dbbe upstream. ALU operations on pointers such as scalar_reg += map_value_ptr are handled in adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(). Problem is however that map_ptr and range in the register state share a union, so transferring state through dst_reg->range = ptr_reg->range is just buggy as any new map_ptr in the dst_reg is then truncated (or null) for subsequent checks. Fix this by adding a raw member and use it for copying state over to dst_reg. Fixes: f1174f77b50c ("bpf/verifier: rework value tracking") Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Cc: Edward Cree Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: Edward Cree Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

bpf: fix integer overflows

2017-12-25T13:26:33+00:00

From: Alexei Starovoitov [ Upstream commit bb7f0f989ca7de1153bd128a40a71709e339fa03 ] There were various issues related to the limited size of integers used in the verifier: - `off + size` overflow in __check_map_access() - `off + reg->off` overflow in check_mem_access() - `off + reg->var_off.value` overflow or 32-bit truncation of `reg->var_off.value` in check_mem_access() - 32-bit truncation in check_stack_boundary() Make sure that any integer math cannot overflow by not allowing pointer math with large values. Also reduce the scope of "scalar op scalar" tracking. Fixes: f1174f77b50c ("bpf/verifier: rework value tracking") Reported-by: Jann Horn Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: fix branch pruning logic

2017-12-25T13:26:31+00:00

From: Alexei Starovoitov [ Upstream commit c131187db2d3fa2f8bf32fdf4e9a4ef805168467 ] when the verifier detects that register contains a runtime constant and it's compared with another constant it will prune exploration of the branch that is guaranteed not to be taken at runtime. This is all correct, but malicious program may be constructed in such a way that it always has a constant comparison and the other branch is never taken under any conditions. In this case such path through the program will not be explored by the verifier. It won't be taken at run-time either, but since all instructions are JITed the malicious program may cause JITs to complain about using reserved fields, etc. To fix the issue we have to track the instructions explored by the verifier and sanitize instructions that are dead at run time with NOPs. We cannot reject such dead code, since llvm generates it for valid C code, since it doesn't do as much data flow analysis as the verifier does. Fixes: 17a5267067f3 ("bpf: verifier (add verifier core)") Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf/verifier: document liveness analysis

2017-08-24T05:38:08+00:00

The liveness tracking algorithm is quite subtle; add comments to explain it. Signed-off-by: Edward Cree Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

bpf/verifier: remove varlen_map_value_access flag

2017-08-24T05:38:08+00:00

The optimisation it does is broken when the 'new' register value has a variable offset and the 'old' was constant. I broke it with my pointer types unification (see Fixes tag below), before which the 'new' value would have type PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_ADJ and would thus not compare equal; other changes in that patch mean that its original behaviour (ignore min/max values) cannot be restored. Tests on a sample set of cilium programs show no change in count of processed instructions. Fixes: f1174f77b50c ("bpf/verifier: rework value tracking") Signed-off-by: Edward Cree Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: David S. Miller