diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/bpf/verifier.rst')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/bpf/verifier.rst | 529 |
1 files changed, 529 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/verifier.rst b/Documentation/bpf/verifier.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..fae5f6273bac --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/bpf/verifier.rst @@ -0,0 +1,529 @@ + +============= +eBPF verifier +============= + +The safety of the eBPF program is determined in two steps. + +First step does DAG check to disallow loops and other CFG validation. +In particular it will detect programs that have unreachable instructions. +(though classic BPF checker allows them) + +Second step starts from the first insn and descends all possible paths. +It simulates execution of every insn and observes the state change of +registers and stack. + +At the start of the program the register R1 contains a pointer to context +and has type PTR_TO_CTX. +If verifier sees an insn that does R2=R1, then R2 has now type +PTR_TO_CTX as well and can be used on the right hand side of expression. +If R1=PTR_TO_CTX and insn is R2=R1+R1, then R2=SCALAR_VALUE, +since addition of two valid pointers makes invalid pointer. +(In 'secure' mode verifier will reject any type of pointer arithmetic to make +sure that kernel addresses don't leak to unprivileged users) + +If register was never written to, it's not readable:: + + bpf_mov R0 = R2 + bpf_exit + +will be rejected, since R2 is unreadable at the start of the program. + +After kernel function call, R1-R5 are reset to unreadable and +R0 has a return type of the function. + +Since R6-R9 are callee saved, their state is preserved across the call. + +:: + + bpf_mov R6 = 1 + bpf_call foo + bpf_mov R0 = R6 + bpf_exit + +is a correct program. If there was R1 instead of R6, it would have +been rejected. + +load/store instructions are allowed only with registers of valid types, which +are PTR_TO_CTX, PTR_TO_MAP, PTR_TO_STACK. They are bounds and alignment checked. +For example:: + + bpf_mov R1 = 1 + bpf_mov R2 = 2 + bpf_xadd *(u32 *)(R1 + 3) += R2 + bpf_exit + +will be rejected, since R1 doesn't have a valid pointer type at the time of +execution of instruction bpf_xadd. + +At the start R1 type is PTR_TO_CTX (a pointer to generic ``struct bpf_context``) +A callback is used to customize verifier to restrict eBPF program access to only +certain fields within ctx structure with specified size and alignment. + +For example, the following insn:: + + bpf_ld R0 = *(u32 *)(R6 + 8) + +intends to load a word from address R6 + 8 and store it into R0 +If R6=PTR_TO_CTX, via is_valid_access() callback the verifier will know +that offset 8 of size 4 bytes can be accessed for reading, otherwise +the verifier will reject the program. +If R6=PTR_TO_STACK, then access should be aligned and be within +stack bounds, which are [-MAX_BPF_STACK, 0). In this example offset is 8, +so it will fail verification, since it's out of bounds. + +The verifier will allow eBPF program to read data from stack only after +it wrote into it. + +Classic BPF verifier does similar check with M[0-15] memory slots. +For example:: + + bpf_ld R0 = *(u32 *)(R10 - 4) + bpf_exit + +is invalid program. +Though R10 is correct read-only register and has type PTR_TO_STACK +and R10 - 4 is within stack bounds, there were no stores into that location. + +Pointer register spill/fill is tracked as well, since four (R6-R9) +callee saved registers may not be enough for some programs. + +Allowed function calls are customized with bpf_verifier_ops->get_func_proto() +The eBPF verifier will check that registers match argument constraints. +After the call register R0 will be set to return type of the function. + +Function calls is a main mechanism to extend functionality of eBPF programs. +Socket filters may let programs to call one set of functions, whereas tracing +filters may allow completely different set. + +If a function made accessible to eBPF program, it needs to be thought through +from safety point of view. The verifier will guarantee that the function is +called with valid arguments. + +seccomp vs socket filters have different security restrictions for classic BPF. +Seccomp solves this by two stage verifier: classic BPF verifier is followed +by seccomp verifier. In case of eBPF one configurable verifier is shared for +all use cases. + +See details of eBPF verifier in kernel/bpf/verifier.c + +Register value tracking +======================= + +In order to determine the safety of an eBPF program, the verifier must track +the range of possible values in each register and also in each stack slot. +This is done with ``struct bpf_reg_state``, defined in include/linux/ +bpf_verifier.h, which unifies tracking of scalar and pointer values. Each +register state has a type, which is either NOT_INIT (the register has not been +written to), SCALAR_VALUE (some value which is not usable as a pointer), or a +pointer type. The types of pointers describe their base, as follows: + + + PTR_TO_CTX + Pointer to bpf_context. + CONST_PTR_TO_MAP + Pointer to struct bpf_map. "Const" because arithmetic + on these pointers is forbidden. + PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE + Pointer to the value stored in a map element. + PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL + Either a pointer to a map value, or NULL; map accesses + (see maps.rst) return this type, which becomes a + PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE when checked != NULL. Arithmetic on + these pointers is forbidden. + PTR_TO_STACK + Frame pointer. + PTR_TO_PACKET + skb->data. + PTR_TO_PACKET_END + skb->data + headlen; arithmetic forbidden. + PTR_TO_SOCKET + Pointer to struct bpf_sock_ops, implicitly refcounted. + PTR_TO_SOCKET_OR_NULL + Either a pointer to a socket, or NULL; socket lookup + returns this type, which becomes a PTR_TO_SOCKET when + checked != NULL. PTR_TO_SOCKET is reference-counted, + so programs must release the reference through the + socket release function before the end of the program. + Arithmetic on these pointers is forbidden. + +However, a pointer may be offset from this base (as a result of pointer +arithmetic), and this is tracked in two parts: the 'fixed offset' and 'variable +offset'. The former is used when an exactly-known value (e.g. an immediate +operand) is added to a pointer, while the latter is used for values which are +not exactly known. The variable offset is also used in SCALAR_VALUEs, to track +the range of possible values in the register. + +The verifier's knowledge about the variable offset consists of: + +* minimum and maximum values as unsigned +* minimum and maximum values as signed + +* knowledge of the values of individual bits, in the form of a 'tnum': a u64 + 'mask' and a u64 'value'. 1s in the mask represent bits whose value is unknown; + 1s in the value represent bits known to be 1. Bits known to be 0 have 0 in both + mask and value; no bit should ever be 1 in both. For example, if a byte is read + into a register from memory, the register's top 56 bits are known zero, while + the low 8 are unknown - which is represented as the tnum (0x0; 0xff). If we + then OR this with 0x40, we get (0x40; 0xbf), then if we add 1 we get (0x0; + 0x1ff), because of potential carries. + +Besides arithmetic, the register state can also be updated by conditional +branches. For instance, if a SCALAR_VALUE is compared > 8, in the 'true' branch +it will have a umin_value (unsigned minimum value) of 9, whereas in the 'false' +branch it will have a umax_value of 8. A signed compare (with BPF_JSGT or +BPF_JSGE) would instead update the signed minimum/maximum values. Information +from the signed and unsigned bounds can be combined; for instance if a value is +first tested < 8 and then tested s> 4, the verifier will conclude that the value +is also > 4 and s< 8, since the bounds prevent crossing the sign boundary. + +PTR_TO_PACKETs with a variable offset part have an 'id', which is common to all +pointers sharing that same variable offset. This is important for packet range +checks: after adding a variable to a packet pointer register A, if you then copy +it to another register B and then add a constant 4 to A, both registers will +share the same 'id' but the A will have a fixed offset of +4. Then if A is +bounds-checked and found to be less than a PTR_TO_PACKET_END, the register B is +now known to have a safe range of at least 4 bytes. See 'Direct packet access', +below, for more on PTR_TO_PACKET ranges. + +The 'id' field is also used on PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL, common to all copies of +the pointer returned from a map lookup. This means that when one copy is +checked and found to be non-NULL, all copies can become PTR_TO_MAP_VALUEs. +As well as range-checking, the tracked information is also used for enforcing +alignment of pointer accesses. For instance, on most systems the packet pointer +is 2 bytes after a 4-byte alignment. If a program adds 14 bytes to that to jump +over the Ethernet header, then reads IHL and addes (IHL * 4), the resulting +pointer will have a variable offset known to be 4n+2 for some n, so adding the 2 +bytes (NET_IP_ALIGN) gives a 4-byte alignment and so word-sized accesses through +that pointer are safe. +The 'id' field is also used on PTR_TO_SOCKET and PTR_TO_SOCKET_OR_NULL, common +to all copies of the pointer returned from a socket lookup. This has similar +behaviour to the handling for PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL->PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE, but +it also handles reference tracking for the pointer. PTR_TO_SOCKET implicitly +represents a reference to the corresponding ``struct sock``. To ensure that the +reference is not leaked, it is imperative to NULL-check the reference and in +the non-NULL case, and pass the valid reference to the socket release function. + +Direct packet access +==================== + +In cls_bpf and act_bpf programs the verifier allows direct access to the packet +data via skb->data and skb->data_end pointers. +Ex:: + + 1: r4 = *(u32 *)(r1 +80) /* load skb->data_end */ + 2: r3 = *(u32 *)(r1 +76) /* load skb->data */ + 3: r5 = r3 + 4: r5 += 14 + 5: if r5 > r4 goto pc+16 + R1=ctx R3=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=14) R4=pkt_end R5=pkt(id=0,off=14,r=14) R10=fp + 6: r0 = *(u16 *)(r3 +12) /* access 12 and 13 bytes of the packet */ + +this 2byte load from the packet is safe to do, since the program author +did check ``if (skb->data + 14 > skb->data_end) goto err`` at insn #5 which +means that in the fall-through case the register R3 (which points to skb->data) +has at least 14 directly accessible bytes. The verifier marks it +as R3=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=14). +id=0 means that no additional variables were added to the register. +off=0 means that no additional constants were added. +r=14 is the range of safe access which means that bytes [R3, R3 + 14) are ok. +Note that R5 is marked as R5=pkt(id=0,off=14,r=14). It also points +to the packet data, but constant 14 was added to the register, so +it now points to ``skb->data + 14`` and accessible range is [R5, R5 + 14 - 14) +which is zero bytes. + +More complex packet access may look like:: + + + R0=inv1 R1=ctx R3=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=14) R4=pkt_end R5=pkt(id=0,off=14,r=14) R10=fp + 6: r0 = *(u8 *)(r3 +7) /* load 7th byte from the packet */ + 7: r4 = *(u8 *)(r3 +12) + 8: r4 *= 14 + 9: r3 = *(u32 *)(r1 +76) /* load skb->data */ + 10: r3 += r4 + 11: r2 = r1 + 12: r2 <<= 48 + 13: r2 >>= 48 + 14: r3 += r2 + 15: r2 = r3 + 16: r2 += 8 + 17: r1 = *(u32 *)(r1 +80) /* load skb->data_end */ + 18: if r2 > r1 goto pc+2 + R0=inv(id=0,umax_value=255,var_off=(0x0; 0xff)) R1=pkt_end R2=pkt(id=2,off=8,r=8) R3=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=8) R4=inv(id=0,umax_value=3570,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffe)) R5=pkt(id=0,off=14,r=14) R10=fp + 19: r1 = *(u8 *)(r3 +4) + +The state of the register R3 is R3=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=8) +id=2 means that two ``r3 += rX`` instructions were seen, so r3 points to some +offset within a packet and since the program author did +``if (r3 + 8 > r1) goto err`` at insn #18, the safe range is [R3, R3 + 8). +The verifier only allows 'add'/'sub' operations on packet registers. Any other +operation will set the register state to 'SCALAR_VALUE' and it won't be +available for direct packet access. + +Operation ``r3 += rX`` may overflow and become less than original skb->data, +therefore the verifier has to prevent that. So when it sees ``r3 += rX`` +instruction and rX is more than 16-bit value, any subsequent bounds-check of r3 +against skb->data_end will not give us 'range' information, so attempts to read +through the pointer will give "invalid access to packet" error. + +Ex. after insn ``r4 = *(u8 *)(r3 +12)`` (insn #7 above) the state of r4 is +R4=inv(id=0,umax_value=255,var_off=(0x0; 0xff)) which means that upper 56 bits +of the register are guaranteed to be zero, and nothing is known about the lower +8 bits. After insn ``r4 *= 14`` the state becomes +R4=inv(id=0,umax_value=3570,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffe)), since multiplying an 8-bit +value by constant 14 will keep upper 52 bits as zero, also the least significant +bit will be zero as 14 is even. Similarly ``r2 >>= 48`` will make +R2=inv(id=0,umax_value=65535,var_off=(0x0; 0xffff)), since the shift is not sign +extending. This logic is implemented in adjust_reg_min_max_vals() function, +which calls adjust_ptr_min_max_vals() for adding pointer to scalar (or vice +versa) and adjust_scalar_min_max_vals() for operations on two scalars. + +The end result is that bpf program author can access packet directly +using normal C code as:: + + void *data = (void *)(long)skb->data; + void *data_end = (void *)(long)skb->data_end; + struct eth_hdr *eth = data; + struct iphdr *iph = data + sizeof(*eth); + struct udphdr *udp = data + sizeof(*eth) + sizeof(*iph); + + if (data + sizeof(*eth) + sizeof(*iph) + sizeof(*udp) > data_end) + return 0; + if (eth->h_proto != htons(ETH_P_IP)) + return 0; + if (iph->protocol != IPPROTO_UDP || iph->ihl != 5) + return 0; + if (udp->dest == 53 || udp->source == 9) + ...; + +which makes such programs easier to write comparing to LD_ABS insn +and significantly faster. + +Pruning +======= + +The verifier does not actually walk all possible paths through the program. For +each new branch to analyse, the verifier looks at all the states it's previously +been in when at this instruction. If any of them contain the current state as a +subset, the branch is 'pruned' - that is, the fact that the previous state was +accepted implies the current state would be as well. For instance, if in the +previous state, r1 held a packet-pointer, and in the current state, r1 holds a +packet-pointer with a range as long or longer and at least as strict an +alignment, then r1 is safe. Similarly, if r2 was NOT_INIT before then it can't +have been used by any path from that point, so any value in r2 (including +another NOT_INIT) is safe. The implementation is in the function regsafe(). +Pruning considers not only the registers but also the stack (and any spilled +registers it may hold). They must all be safe for the branch to be pruned. +This is implemented in states_equal(). + +Understanding eBPF verifier messages +==================================== + +The following are few examples of invalid eBPF programs and verifier error +messages as seen in the log: + +Program with unreachable instructions:: + + static struct bpf_insn prog[] = { + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }; + +Error: + + unreachable insn 1 + +Program that reads uninitialized register:: + + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + +Error:: + + 0: (bf) r0 = r2 + R2 !read_ok + +Program that doesn't initialize R0 before exiting:: + + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + +Error:: + + 0: (bf) r2 = r1 + 1: (95) exit + R0 !read_ok + +Program that accesses stack out of bounds:: + + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, 8, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + +Error:: + + 0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 +8) = 0 + invalid stack off=8 size=8 + +Program that doesn't initialize stack before passing its address into function:: + + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + +Error:: + + 0: (bf) r2 = r10 + 1: (07) r2 += -8 + 2: (b7) r1 = 0x0 + 3: (85) call 1 + invalid indirect read from stack off -8+0 size 8 + +Program that uses invalid map_fd=0 while calling to map_lookup_elem() function:: + + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + +Error:: + + 0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 + 1: (bf) r2 = r10 + 2: (07) r2 += -8 + 3: (b7) r1 = 0x0 + 4: (85) call 1 + fd 0 is not pointing to valid bpf_map + +Program that doesn't check return value of map_lookup_elem() before accessing +map element:: + + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, 0, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + +Error:: + + 0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 + 1: (bf) r2 = r10 + 2: (07) r2 += -8 + 3: (b7) r1 = 0x0 + 4: (85) call 1 + 5: (7a) *(u64 *)(r0 +0) = 0 + R0 invalid mem access 'map_value_or_null' + +Program that correctly checks map_lookup_elem() returned value for NULL, but +accesses the memory with incorrect alignment:: + + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, 4, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + +Error:: + + 0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 + 1: (bf) r2 = r10 + 2: (07) r2 += -8 + 3: (b7) r1 = 1 + 4: (85) call 1 + 5: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+1 + R0=map_ptr R10=fp + 6: (7a) *(u64 *)(r0 +4) = 0 + misaligned access off 4 size 8 + +Program that correctly checks map_lookup_elem() returned value for NULL and +accesses memory with correct alignment in one side of 'if' branch, but fails +to do so in the other side of 'if' branch:: + + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 2), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, 0, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + +Error:: + + 0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 + 1: (bf) r2 = r10 + 2: (07) r2 += -8 + 3: (b7) r1 = 1 + 4: (85) call 1 + 5: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 + R0=map_ptr R10=fp + 6: (7a) *(u64 *)(r0 +0) = 0 + 7: (95) exit + + from 5 to 8: R0=imm0 R10=fp + 8: (7a) *(u64 *)(r0 +0) = 1 + R0 invalid mem access 'imm' + +Program that performs a socket lookup then sets the pointer to NULL without +checking it:: + + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 0), + BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, 4), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_4, 0), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_5, 0), + BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_sk_lookup_tcp), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + +Error:: + + 0: (b7) r2 = 0 + 1: (63) *(u32 *)(r10 -8) = r2 + 2: (bf) r2 = r10 + 3: (07) r2 += -8 + 4: (b7) r3 = 4 + 5: (b7) r4 = 0 + 6: (b7) r5 = 0 + 7: (85) call bpf_sk_lookup_tcp#65 + 8: (b7) r0 = 0 + 9: (95) exit + Unreleased reference id=1, alloc_insn=7 + +Program that performs a socket lookup but does not NULL-check the returned +value:: + + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 0), + BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, 4), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_4, 0), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_5, 0), + BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_sk_lookup_tcp), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + +Error:: + + 0: (b7) r2 = 0 + 1: (63) *(u32 *)(r10 -8) = r2 + 2: (bf) r2 = r10 + 3: (07) r2 += -8 + 4: (b7) r3 = 4 + 5: (b7) r4 = 0 + 6: (b7) r5 = 0 + 7: (85) call bpf_sk_lookup_tcp#65 + 8: (95) exit + Unreleased reference id=1, alloc_insn=7 |