summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/kernel/bpf
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorAlexei Starovoitov <ast@fb.com>2017-11-23 03:42:05 +0300
committerDaniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>2017-11-23 12:56:35 +0300
commitc131187db2d3fa2f8bf32fdf4e9a4ef805168467 (patch)
tree27ca3840001ee21e75f21cd8ecfe3de4568a359f /kernel/bpf
parent107af8ec117b0af6e90ddfe42e568b2efd8f6ff7 (diff)
downloadlinux-c131187db2d3fa2f8bf32fdf4e9a4ef805168467.tar.xz
bpf: fix branch pruning logic
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 <ast@kernel.org> Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Diffstat (limited to 'kernel/bpf')
-rw-r--r--kernel/bpf/verifier.c27
1 files changed, 27 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 308b0638ec5d..d4593571c404 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -3827,6 +3827,7 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
return err;
regs = cur_regs(env);
+ env->insn_aux_data[insn_idx].seen = true;
if (class == BPF_ALU || class == BPF_ALU64) {
err = check_alu_op(env, insn);
if (err)
@@ -4022,6 +4023,7 @@ process_bpf_exit:
return err;
insn_idx++;
+ env->insn_aux_data[insn_idx].seen = true;
} else {
verbose(env, "invalid BPF_LD mode\n");
return -EINVAL;
@@ -4204,6 +4206,7 @@ static int adjust_insn_aux_data(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 prog_len,
u32 off, u32 cnt)
{
struct bpf_insn_aux_data *new_data, *old_data = env->insn_aux_data;
+ int i;
if (cnt == 1)
return 0;
@@ -4213,6 +4216,8 @@ static int adjust_insn_aux_data(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 prog_len,
memcpy(new_data, old_data, sizeof(struct bpf_insn_aux_data) * off);
memcpy(new_data + off + cnt - 1, old_data + off,
sizeof(struct bpf_insn_aux_data) * (prog_len - off - cnt + 1));
+ for (i = off; i < off + cnt - 1; i++)
+ new_data[i].seen = true;
env->insn_aux_data = new_data;
vfree(old_data);
return 0;
@@ -4231,6 +4236,25 @@ static struct bpf_prog *bpf_patch_insn_data(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 of
return new_prog;
}
+/* The verifier does more data flow analysis than llvm and will not explore
+ * branches that are dead at run time. Malicious programs can have dead code
+ * too. Therefore replace all dead at-run-time code with nops.
+ */
+static void sanitize_dead_code(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
+{
+ struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux_data = env->insn_aux_data;
+ struct bpf_insn nop = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0);
+ struct bpf_insn *insn = env->prog->insnsi;
+ const int insn_cnt = env->prog->len;
+ int i;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < insn_cnt; i++) {
+ if (aux_data[i].seen)
+ continue;
+ memcpy(insn + i, &nop, sizeof(nop));
+ }
+}
+
/* convert load instructions that access fields of 'struct __sk_buff'
* into sequence of instructions that access fields of 'struct sk_buff'
*/
@@ -4558,6 +4582,9 @@ skip_full_check:
free_states(env);
if (ret == 0)
+ sanitize_dead_code(env);
+
+ if (ret == 0)
/* program is valid, convert *(u32*)(ctx + off) accesses */
ret = convert_ctx_accesses(env);