This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.4.116 release. There are 8 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please let me know.
Responses should be made by Sun, 02 May 2021 14:19:04 +0000. Anything received after that time might be too late.
The whole patch series can be found in one patch at: https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.4.116-rc1... or in the git tree and branch at: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-5.4.y and the diffstat can be found below.
thanks,
greg k-h
------------- Pseudo-Shortlog of commits:
Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Linux 5.4.116-rc1
Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net bpf: Update selftests to reflect new error states
Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net bpf: Tighten speculative pointer arithmetic mask
Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net bpf: Move sanitize_val_alu out of op switch
Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net bpf: Refactor and streamline bounds check into helper
Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net bpf: Improve verifier error messages for users
Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net bpf: Rework ptr_limit into alu_limit and add common error path
Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net bpf: Ensure off_reg has no mixed signed bounds for all types
Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net bpf: Move off_reg into sanitize_ptr_alu
-------------
Diffstat:
Makefile | 4 +- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 233 ++++++++++++++------- .../selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_deduction.c | 21 +- .../bpf/verifier/bounds_mix_sign_unsign.c | 13 -- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c | 2 +- .../selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c | 6 +- 6 files changed, 175 insertions(+), 104 deletions(-)
From: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net
commit 6f55b2f2a1178856c19bbce2f71449926e731914 upstream.
Small refactor to drag off_reg into sanitize_ptr_alu(), so we later on can use off_reg for generalizing some of the checks for all pointer types.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net Reviewed-by: John Fastabend john.fastabend@gmail.com Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov ast@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 9 +++++---- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -4336,11 +4336,12 @@ static int sanitize_val_alu(struct bpf_v static int sanitize_ptr_alu(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn, const struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg, - struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg, - bool off_is_neg) + const struct bpf_reg_state *off_reg, + struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg) { struct bpf_verifier_state *vstate = env->cur_state; struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux = cur_aux(env); + bool off_is_neg = off_reg->smin_value < 0; bool ptr_is_dst_reg = ptr_reg == dst_reg; u8 opcode = BPF_OP(insn->code); u32 alu_state, alu_limit; @@ -4474,7 +4475,7 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struc
switch (opcode) { case BPF_ADD: - ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, dst_reg, smin_val < 0); + ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, off_reg, dst_reg); if (ret < 0) { verbose(env, "R%d tried to add from different maps, paths, or prohibited types\n", dst); return ret; @@ -4529,7 +4530,7 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struc } break; case BPF_SUB: - ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, dst_reg, smin_val < 0); + ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, off_reg, dst_reg); if (ret < 0) { verbose(env, "R%d tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types\n", dst); return ret;
From: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net
commit 24c109bb1537c12c02aeed2d51a347b4d6a9b76e upstream.
The mixed signed bounds check really belongs into retrieve_ptr_limit() instead of outside of it in adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(). The reason is that this check is not tied to PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE only, but to all pointer types that we handle in retrieve_ptr_limit() and given errors from the latter propagate back to adjust_ptr_min_max_vals() and lead to rejection of the program, it's a better place to reside to avoid anything slipping through for future types. The reason why we must reject such off_reg is that we otherwise would not be able to derive a mask, see details in 9d7eceede769 ("bpf: restrict unknown scalars of mixed signed bounds for unprivileged").
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net Reviewed-by: John Fastabend john.fastabend@gmail.com Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov ast@kernel.org [fllinden@amazon.com: backport to 5.4] Signed-off-by: Frank van der Linden fllinden@amazon.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 19 +++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -4264,12 +4264,18 @@ static struct bpf_insn_aux_data *cur_aux }
static int retrieve_ptr_limit(const struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg, - u32 *ptr_limit, u8 opcode, bool off_is_neg) + const struct bpf_reg_state *off_reg, + u32 *ptr_limit, u8 opcode) { + bool off_is_neg = off_reg->smin_value < 0; bool mask_to_left = (opcode == BPF_ADD && off_is_neg) || (opcode == BPF_SUB && !off_is_neg); u32 off, max;
+ if (!tnum_is_const(off_reg->var_off) && + (off_reg->smin_value < 0) != (off_reg->smax_value < 0)) + return -EACCES; + switch (ptr_reg->type) { case PTR_TO_STACK: /* Offset 0 is out-of-bounds, but acceptable start for the @@ -4363,7 +4369,7 @@ static int sanitize_ptr_alu(struct bpf_v alu_state |= ptr_is_dst_reg ? BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_SRC : BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_DST;
- err = retrieve_ptr_limit(ptr_reg, &alu_limit, opcode, off_is_neg); + err = retrieve_ptr_limit(ptr_reg, off_reg, &alu_limit, opcode); if (err < 0) return err;
@@ -4408,8 +4414,8 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struc smin_ptr = ptr_reg->smin_value, smax_ptr = ptr_reg->smax_value; u64 umin_val = off_reg->umin_value, umax_val = off_reg->umax_value, umin_ptr = ptr_reg->umin_value, umax_ptr = ptr_reg->umax_value; - u32 dst = insn->dst_reg, src = insn->src_reg; u8 opcode = BPF_OP(insn->code); + u32 dst = insn->dst_reg; int ret;
dst_reg = ®s[dst]; @@ -4452,13 +4458,6 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struc verbose(env, "R%d pointer arithmetic on %s prohibited\n", dst, reg_type_str[ptr_reg->type]); return -EACCES; - case PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE: - if (!env->allow_ptr_leaks && !known && (smin_val < 0) != (smax_val < 0)) { - verbose(env, "R%d has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds, pointer arithmetic with it prohibited for !root\n", - off_reg == dst_reg ? dst : src); - return -EACCES; - } - /* fall-through */ default: break; }
From: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net
commit b658bbb844e28f1862867f37e8ca11a8e2aa94a3 upstream.
Small refactor with no semantic changes in order to consolidate the max ptr_limit boundary check.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net Reviewed-by: John Fastabend john.fastabend@gmail.com Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov ast@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 21 +++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -4265,12 +4265,12 @@ static struct bpf_insn_aux_data *cur_aux
static int retrieve_ptr_limit(const struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg, const struct bpf_reg_state *off_reg, - u32 *ptr_limit, u8 opcode) + u32 *alu_limit, u8 opcode) { bool off_is_neg = off_reg->smin_value < 0; bool mask_to_left = (opcode == BPF_ADD && off_is_neg) || (opcode == BPF_SUB && !off_is_neg); - u32 off, max; + u32 off, max = 0, ptr_limit = 0;
if (!tnum_is_const(off_reg->var_off) && (off_reg->smin_value < 0) != (off_reg->smax_value < 0)) @@ -4287,22 +4287,27 @@ static int retrieve_ptr_limit(const stru */ off = ptr_reg->off + ptr_reg->var_off.value; if (mask_to_left) - *ptr_limit = MAX_BPF_STACK + off; + ptr_limit = MAX_BPF_STACK + off; else - *ptr_limit = -off - 1; - return *ptr_limit >= max ? -ERANGE : 0; + ptr_limit = -off - 1; + break; case PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE: max = ptr_reg->map_ptr->value_size; if (mask_to_left) { - *ptr_limit = ptr_reg->umax_value + ptr_reg->off; + ptr_limit = ptr_reg->umax_value + ptr_reg->off; } else { off = ptr_reg->smin_value + ptr_reg->off; - *ptr_limit = ptr_reg->map_ptr->value_size - off - 1; + ptr_limit = ptr_reg->map_ptr->value_size - off - 1; } - return *ptr_limit >= max ? -ERANGE : 0; + break; default: return -EINVAL; } + + if (ptr_limit >= max) + return -ERANGE; + *alu_limit = ptr_limit; + return 0; }
static bool can_skip_alu_sanitation(const struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
From: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net
commit a6aaece00a57fa6f22575364b3903dfbccf5345d upstream.
Consolidate all error handling and provide more user-friendly error messages from sanitize_ptr_alu() and sanitize_val_alu().
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net Reviewed-by: John Fastabend john.fastabend@gmail.com Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov ast@kernel.org [fllinden@amazon.com: backport to 5.4] Signed-off-by: Frank van der Linden fllinden@amazon.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -4263,6 +4263,14 @@ static struct bpf_insn_aux_data *cur_aux return &env->insn_aux_data[env->insn_idx]; }
+enum { + REASON_BOUNDS = -1, + REASON_TYPE = -2, + REASON_PATHS = -3, + REASON_LIMIT = -4, + REASON_STACK = -5, +}; + static int retrieve_ptr_limit(const struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg, const struct bpf_reg_state *off_reg, u32 *alu_limit, u8 opcode) @@ -4274,7 +4282,7 @@ static int retrieve_ptr_limit(const stru
if (!tnum_is_const(off_reg->var_off) && (off_reg->smin_value < 0) != (off_reg->smax_value < 0)) - return -EACCES; + return REASON_BOUNDS;
switch (ptr_reg->type) { case PTR_TO_STACK: @@ -4301,11 +4309,11 @@ static int retrieve_ptr_limit(const stru } break; default: - return -EINVAL; + return REASON_TYPE; }
if (ptr_limit >= max) - return -ERANGE; + return REASON_LIMIT; *alu_limit = ptr_limit; return 0; } @@ -4325,7 +4333,7 @@ static int update_alu_sanitation_state(s if (aux->alu_state && (aux->alu_state != alu_state || aux->alu_limit != alu_limit)) - return -EACCES; + return REASON_PATHS;
/* Corresponding fixup done in fixup_bpf_calls(). */ aux->alu_state = alu_state; @@ -4398,7 +4406,46 @@ do_sim: ret = push_stack(env, env->insn_idx + 1, env->insn_idx, true); if (!ptr_is_dst_reg && ret) *dst_reg = tmp; - return !ret ? -EFAULT : 0; + return !ret ? REASON_STACK : 0; +} + +static int sanitize_err(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, + const struct bpf_insn *insn, int reason, + const struct bpf_reg_state *off_reg, + const struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg) +{ + static const char *err = "pointer arithmetic with it prohibited for !root"; + const char *op = BPF_OP(insn->code) == BPF_ADD ? "add" : "sub"; + u32 dst = insn->dst_reg, src = insn->src_reg; + + switch (reason) { + case REASON_BOUNDS: + verbose(env, "R%d has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds, %s\n", + off_reg == dst_reg ? dst : src, err); + break; + case REASON_TYPE: + verbose(env, "R%d has pointer with unsupported alu operation, %s\n", + off_reg == dst_reg ? src : dst, err); + break; + case REASON_PATHS: + verbose(env, "R%d tried to %s from different maps, paths or scalars, %s\n", + dst, op, err); + break; + case REASON_LIMIT: + verbose(env, "R%d tried to %s beyond pointer bounds, %s\n", + dst, op, err); + break; + case REASON_STACK: + verbose(env, "R%d could not be pushed for speculative verification, %s\n", + dst, err); + break; + default: + verbose(env, "verifier internal error: unknown reason (%d)\n", + reason); + break; + } + + return -EACCES; }
/* Handles arithmetic on a pointer and a scalar: computes new min/max and var_off. @@ -4480,10 +4527,9 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struc switch (opcode) { case BPF_ADD: ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, off_reg, dst_reg); - if (ret < 0) { - verbose(env, "R%d tried to add from different maps, paths, or prohibited types\n", dst); - return ret; - } + if (ret < 0) + return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret, off_reg, dst_reg); + /* We can take a fixed offset as long as it doesn't overflow * the s32 'off' field */ @@ -4535,10 +4581,9 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struc break; case BPF_SUB: ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, off_reg, dst_reg); - if (ret < 0) { - verbose(env, "R%d tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types\n", dst); - return ret; - } + if (ret < 0) + return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret, off_reg, dst_reg); + if (dst_reg == off_reg) { /* scalar -= pointer. Creates an unknown scalar */ verbose(env, "R%d tried to subtract pointer from scalar\n", @@ -4655,7 +4700,6 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(st s64 smin_val, smax_val; u64 umin_val, umax_val; u64 insn_bitness = (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64) ? 64 : 32; - u32 dst = insn->dst_reg; int ret;
if (insn_bitness == 32) { @@ -4692,10 +4736,8 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(st switch (opcode) { case BPF_ADD: ret = sanitize_val_alu(env, insn); - if (ret < 0) { - verbose(env, "R%d tried to add from different pointers or scalars\n", dst); - return ret; - } + if (ret < 0) + return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret, NULL, NULL); if (signed_add_overflows(dst_reg->smin_value, smin_val) || signed_add_overflows(dst_reg->smax_value, smax_val)) { dst_reg->smin_value = S64_MIN; @@ -4716,10 +4758,8 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(st break; case BPF_SUB: ret = sanitize_val_alu(env, insn); - if (ret < 0) { - verbose(env, "R%d tried to sub from different pointers or scalars\n", dst); - return ret; - } + if (ret < 0) + return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret, NULL, NULL); if (signed_sub_overflows(dst_reg->smin_value, smax_val) || signed_sub_overflows(dst_reg->smax_value, smin_val)) { /* Overflow possible, we know nothing */
From: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net
commit 073815b756c51ba9d8384d924c5d1c03ca3d1ae4 upstream.
Move the bounds check in adjust_ptr_min_max_vals() into a small helper named sanitize_check_bounds() in order to simplify the former a bit.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net Reviewed-by: John Fastabend john.fastabend@gmail.com Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov ast@kernel.org [fllinden@amazon.com: backport to 5.4] Signed-off-by: Frank van der Linden fllinden@amazon.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------- 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -4448,6 +4448,41 @@ static int sanitize_err(struct bpf_verif return -EACCES; }
+static int sanitize_check_bounds(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, + const struct bpf_insn *insn, + const struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg) +{ + u32 dst = insn->dst_reg; + + /* For unprivileged we require that resulting offset must be in bounds + * in order to be able to sanitize access later on. + */ + if (env->allow_ptr_leaks) + return 0; + + switch (dst_reg->type) { + case PTR_TO_STACK: + if (check_stack_access(env, dst_reg, dst_reg->off + + dst_reg->var_off.value, 1)) { + verbose(env, "R%d stack pointer arithmetic goes out of range, " + "prohibited for !root\n", dst); + return -EACCES; + } + break; + case PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE: + if (check_map_access(env, dst, dst_reg->off, 1, false)) { + verbose(env, "R%d pointer arithmetic of map value goes out of range, " + "prohibited for !root\n", dst); + return -EACCES; + } + break; + default: + break; + } + + return 0; +} + /* Handles arithmetic on a pointer and a scalar: computes new min/max and var_off. * Caller should also handle BPF_MOV case separately. * If we return -EACCES, caller may want to try again treating pointer as a @@ -4664,23 +4699,8 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struc __reg_deduce_bounds(dst_reg); __reg_bound_offset(dst_reg);
- /* For unprivileged we require that resulting offset must be in bounds - * in order to be able to sanitize access later on. - */ - if (!env->allow_ptr_leaks) { - if (dst_reg->type == PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE && - check_map_access(env, dst, dst_reg->off, 1, false)) { - verbose(env, "R%d pointer arithmetic of map value goes out of range, " - "prohibited for !root\n", dst); - return -EACCES; - } else if (dst_reg->type == PTR_TO_STACK && - check_stack_access(env, dst_reg, dst_reg->off + - dst_reg->var_off.value, 1)) { - verbose(env, "R%d stack pointer arithmetic goes out of range, " - "prohibited for !root\n", dst); - return -EACCES; - } - } + if (sanitize_check_bounds(env, insn, dst_reg) < 0) + return -EACCES;
return 0; }
From: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net
commit f528819334881fd622fdadeddb3f7edaed8b7c9b upstream.
Add a small sanitize_needed() helper function and move sanitize_val_alu() out of the main opcode switch. In upcoming work, we'll move sanitize_ptr_alu() as well out of its opcode switch so this helps to streamline both.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net Reviewed-by: John Fastabend john.fastabend@gmail.com Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov ast@kernel.org [fllinden@amazon.com: backported to 5.4] Signed-off-by: Frank van der Linden fllinden@amazon.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 15 ++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -4352,6 +4352,11 @@ static int sanitize_val_alu(struct bpf_v return update_alu_sanitation_state(aux, BPF_ALU_NON_POINTER, 0); }
+static bool sanitize_needed(u8 opcode) +{ + return opcode == BPF_ADD || opcode == BPF_SUB; +} + static int sanitize_ptr_alu(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn, const struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg, @@ -4753,11 +4758,14 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(st return 0; }
- switch (opcode) { - case BPF_ADD: + if (sanitize_needed(opcode)) { ret = sanitize_val_alu(env, insn); if (ret < 0) return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret, NULL, NULL); + } + + switch (opcode) { + case BPF_ADD: if (signed_add_overflows(dst_reg->smin_value, smin_val) || signed_add_overflows(dst_reg->smax_value, smax_val)) { dst_reg->smin_value = S64_MIN; @@ -4777,9 +4785,6 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(st dst_reg->var_off = tnum_add(dst_reg->var_off, src_reg.var_off); break; case BPF_SUB: - ret = sanitize_val_alu(env, insn); - if (ret < 0) - return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret, NULL, NULL); if (signed_sub_overflows(dst_reg->smin_value, smax_val) || signed_sub_overflows(dst_reg->smax_value, smin_val)) { /* Overflow possible, we know nothing */
From: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net
commit 7fedb63a8307dda0ec3b8969a3b233a1dd7ea8e0 upstream.
This work tightens the offset mask we use for unprivileged pointer arithmetic in order to mitigate a corner case reported by Piotr and Benedict where in the speculative domain it is possible to advance, for example, the map value pointer by up to value_size-1 out-of-bounds in order to leak kernel memory via side-channel to user space.
Before this change, the computed ptr_limit for retrieve_ptr_limit() helper represents largest valid distance when moving pointer to the right or left which is then fed as aux->alu_limit to generate masking instructions against the offset register. After the change, the derived aux->alu_limit represents the largest potential value of the offset register which we mask against which is just a narrower subset of the former limit.
For minimal complexity, we call sanitize_ptr_alu() from 2 observation points in adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(), that is, before and after the simulated alu operation. In the first step, we retieve the alu_state and alu_limit before the operation as well as we branch-off a verifier path and push it to the verification stack as we did before which checks the dst_reg under truncation, in other words, when the speculative domain would attempt to move the pointer out-of-bounds.
In the second step, we retrieve the new alu_limit and calculate the absolute distance between both. Moreover, we commit the alu_state and final alu_limit via update_alu_sanitation_state() to the env's instruction aux data, and bail out from there if there is a mismatch due to coming from different verification paths with different states.
Reported-by: Piotr Krysiuk piotras@gmail.com Reported-by: Benedict Schlueter benedict.schlueter@rub.de Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net Reviewed-by: John Fastabend john.fastabend@gmail.com Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov ast@kernel.org Tested-by: Benedict Schlueter benedict.schlueter@rub.de [fllinden@amazon.com: backported to 5.4] Signed-off-by: Frank van der Linden fllinden@amazon.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------- 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -4278,7 +4278,7 @@ static int retrieve_ptr_limit(const stru bool off_is_neg = off_reg->smin_value < 0; bool mask_to_left = (opcode == BPF_ADD && off_is_neg) || (opcode == BPF_SUB && !off_is_neg); - u32 off, max = 0, ptr_limit = 0; + u32 max = 0, ptr_limit = 0;
if (!tnum_is_const(off_reg->var_off) && (off_reg->smin_value < 0) != (off_reg->smax_value < 0)) @@ -4287,26 +4287,18 @@ static int retrieve_ptr_limit(const stru switch (ptr_reg->type) { case PTR_TO_STACK: /* Offset 0 is out-of-bounds, but acceptable start for the - * left direction, see BPF_REG_FP. + * left direction, see BPF_REG_FP. Also, unknown scalar + * offset where we would need to deal with min/max bounds is + * currently prohibited for unprivileged. */ max = MAX_BPF_STACK + mask_to_left; - /* Indirect variable offset stack access is prohibited in - * unprivileged mode so it's not handled here. - */ - off = ptr_reg->off + ptr_reg->var_off.value; - if (mask_to_left) - ptr_limit = MAX_BPF_STACK + off; - else - ptr_limit = -off - 1; + ptr_limit = -(ptr_reg->var_off.value + ptr_reg->off); break; case PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE: max = ptr_reg->map_ptr->value_size; - if (mask_to_left) { - ptr_limit = ptr_reg->umax_value + ptr_reg->off; - } else { - off = ptr_reg->smin_value + ptr_reg->off; - ptr_limit = ptr_reg->map_ptr->value_size - off - 1; - } + ptr_limit = (mask_to_left ? + ptr_reg->smin_value : + ptr_reg->umax_value) + ptr_reg->off; break; default: return REASON_TYPE; @@ -4361,10 +4353,12 @@ static int sanitize_ptr_alu(struct bpf_v struct bpf_insn *insn, const struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg, const struct bpf_reg_state *off_reg, - struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg) + struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg, + struct bpf_insn_aux_data *tmp_aux, + const bool commit_window) { + struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux = commit_window ? cur_aux(env) : tmp_aux; struct bpf_verifier_state *vstate = env->cur_state; - struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux = cur_aux(env); bool off_is_neg = off_reg->smin_value < 0; bool ptr_is_dst_reg = ptr_reg == dst_reg; u8 opcode = BPF_OP(insn->code); @@ -4383,18 +4377,33 @@ static int sanitize_ptr_alu(struct bpf_v if (vstate->speculative) goto do_sim;
- alu_state = off_is_neg ? BPF_ALU_NEG_VALUE : 0; - alu_state |= ptr_is_dst_reg ? - BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_SRC : BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_DST; - err = retrieve_ptr_limit(ptr_reg, off_reg, &alu_limit, opcode); if (err < 0) return err;
+ if (commit_window) { + /* In commit phase we narrow the masking window based on + * the observed pointer move after the simulated operation. + */ + alu_state = tmp_aux->alu_state; + alu_limit = abs(tmp_aux->alu_limit - alu_limit); + } else { + alu_state = off_is_neg ? BPF_ALU_NEG_VALUE : 0; + alu_state |= ptr_is_dst_reg ? + BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_SRC : BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_DST; + } + err = update_alu_sanitation_state(aux, alu_state, alu_limit); if (err < 0) return err; do_sim: + /* If we're in commit phase, we're done here given we already + * pushed the truncated dst_reg into the speculative verification + * stack. + */ + if (commit_window) + return 0; + /* Simulate and find potential out-of-bounds access under * speculative execution from truncation as a result of * masking when off was not within expected range. If off @@ -4506,6 +4515,7 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struc smin_ptr = ptr_reg->smin_value, smax_ptr = ptr_reg->smax_value; u64 umin_val = off_reg->umin_value, umax_val = off_reg->umax_value, umin_ptr = ptr_reg->umin_value, umax_ptr = ptr_reg->umax_value; + struct bpf_insn_aux_data tmp_aux = {}; u8 opcode = BPF_OP(insn->code); u32 dst = insn->dst_reg; int ret; @@ -4564,12 +4574,15 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struc !check_reg_sane_offset(env, ptr_reg, ptr_reg->type)) return -EINVAL;
- switch (opcode) { - case BPF_ADD: - ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, off_reg, dst_reg); + if (sanitize_needed(opcode)) { + ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, off_reg, dst_reg, + &tmp_aux, false); if (ret < 0) return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret, off_reg, dst_reg); + }
+ switch (opcode) { + case BPF_ADD: /* We can take a fixed offset as long as it doesn't overflow * the s32 'off' field */ @@ -4620,10 +4633,6 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struc } break; case BPF_SUB: - ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, off_reg, dst_reg); - if (ret < 0) - return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret, off_reg, dst_reg); - if (dst_reg == off_reg) { /* scalar -= pointer. Creates an unknown scalar */ verbose(env, "R%d tried to subtract pointer from scalar\n", @@ -4706,6 +4715,12 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struc
if (sanitize_check_bounds(env, insn, dst_reg) < 0) return -EACCES; + if (sanitize_needed(opcode)) { + ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, dst_reg, off_reg, dst_reg, + &tmp_aux, true); + if (ret < 0) + return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret, off_reg, dst_reg); + }
return 0; }
From: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net
commit d7a5091351756d0ae8e63134313c455624e36a13 upstream.
Update various selftest error messages:
* The 'Rx tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types' is reworked into more specific/differentiated error messages for better guidance.
* The change into 'value -4294967168 makes map_value pointer be out of bounds' is due to moving the mixed bounds check into the speculation handling and thus occuring slightly later than above mentioned sanity check.
* The change into 'math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value' is similarly due to register sanity check coming before the mixed bounds check.
* The case of 'map access: known scalar += value_ptr from different maps' now loads fine given masks are the same from the different paths (despite max map value size being different).
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net Reviewed-by: John Fastabend john.fastabend@gmail.com Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov ast@kernel.org [fllinden@amazon - skip bounds.c test mods, they won't change error msg on 5.4] Signed-off-by: Frank van der Linden fllinden@amazon.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_deduction.c | 21 +++++----- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_mix_sign_unsign.c | 13 ------ tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c | 2 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c | 6 -- 4 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_deduction.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_deduction.c @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, - .errstr_unpriv = "R0 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types", + .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation", .errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar", .result = REJECT, }, @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, - .errstr_unpriv = "R1 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types", + .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation", .result_unpriv = REJECT, .result = ACCEPT, .retval = 1, @@ -34,22 +34,23 @@ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, - .errstr_unpriv = "R0 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types", + .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation", .errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar", .result = REJECT, }, { "check deducing bounds from const, 4", .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1), BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSLE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), - BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, - .errstr_unpriv = "R1 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types", + .errstr_unpriv = "R6 has pointer with unsupported alu operation", .result_unpriv = REJECT, .result = ACCEPT, }, @@ -61,7 +62,7 @@ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, - .errstr_unpriv = "R0 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types", + .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation", .errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar", .result = REJECT, }, @@ -74,7 +75,7 @@ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, - .errstr_unpriv = "R0 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types", + .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation", .errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar", .result = REJECT, }, @@ -88,7 +89,7 @@ offsetof(struct __sk_buff, mark)), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, - .errstr_unpriv = "R1 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types", + .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation", .errstr = "dereference of modified ctx ptr", .result = REJECT, .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, @@ -103,7 +104,7 @@ offsetof(struct __sk_buff, mark)), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, - .errstr_unpriv = "R1 tried to add from different maps, paths, or prohibited types", + .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation", .errstr = "dereference of modified ctx ptr", .result = REJECT, .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, @@ -116,7 +117,7 @@ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, - .errstr_unpriv = "R0 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types", + .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation", .errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar", .result = REJECT, }, --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_mix_sign_unsign.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_mix_sign_unsign.c @@ -19,7 +19,6 @@ }, .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", - .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds", .result = REJECT, }, { @@ -43,7 +42,6 @@ }, .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", - .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds", .result = REJECT, }, { @@ -69,7 +67,6 @@ }, .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", - .errstr_unpriv = "R8 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds", .result = REJECT, }, { @@ -94,7 +91,6 @@ }, .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", - .errstr_unpriv = "R8 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds", .result = REJECT, }, { @@ -141,7 +137,6 @@ }, .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", - .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds", .result = REJECT, }, { @@ -210,7 +205,6 @@ }, .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", - .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds", .result = REJECT, }, { @@ -260,7 +254,6 @@ }, .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", - .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds", .result = REJECT, }, { @@ -287,7 +280,6 @@ }, .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", - .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds", .result = REJECT, }, { @@ -313,7 +305,6 @@ }, .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", - .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds", .result = REJECT, }, { @@ -342,7 +333,6 @@ }, .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", - .errstr_unpriv = "R7 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds", .result = REJECT, }, { @@ -372,7 +362,6 @@ }, .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 4 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", - .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds", .result = REJECT, }, { @@ -400,7 +389,5 @@ }, .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", - .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds", .result = REJECT, - .result_unpriv = REJECT, }, --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c @@ -503,7 +503,7 @@ BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, -8), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, - .errstr_unpriv = "R1 tried to add from different maps, paths, or prohibited types", + .errstr_unpriv = "R1 stack pointer arithmetic goes out of range", .result_unpriv = REJECT, .result = ACCEPT, }, --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c @@ -21,8 +21,6 @@ .fixup_map_hash_16b = { 5 }, .fixup_map_array_48b = { 8 }, .result = ACCEPT, - .result_unpriv = REJECT, - .errstr_unpriv = "R1 tried to add from different maps", .retval = 1, }, { @@ -122,7 +120,7 @@ .fixup_map_array_48b = { 1 }, .result = ACCEPT, .result_unpriv = REJECT, - .errstr_unpriv = "R2 tried to add from different pointers or scalars", + .errstr_unpriv = "R2 tried to add from different maps, paths or scalars", .retval = 0, }, { @@ -169,7 +167,7 @@ .fixup_map_array_48b = { 1 }, .result = ACCEPT, .result_unpriv = REJECT, - .errstr_unpriv = "R2 tried to add from different maps, paths, or prohibited types", + .errstr_unpriv = "R2 tried to add from different maps, paths or scalars", .retval = 0, }, {
On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 16:20:14 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.4.116 release. There are 8 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please let me know.
Responses should be made by Sun, 02 May 2021 14:19:04 +0000. Anything received after that time might be too late.
The whole patch series can be found in one patch at: https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.4.116-rc1... or in the git tree and branch at: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-5.4.y and the diffstat can be found below.
thanks,
greg k-h
All tests passing for Tegra ...
Test results for stable-v5.4: 12 builds: 12 pass, 0 fail 26 boots: 26 pass, 0 fail 59 tests: 59 pass, 0 fail
Linux version: 5.4.116-rc1-g4f9e765c943d Boards tested: tegra124-jetson-tk1, tegra186-p2771-0000, tegra194-p2972-0000, tegra20-ventana, tegra210-p2371-2180, tegra210-p3450-0000, tegra30-cardhu-a04
Tested-by: Jon Hunter jonathanh@nvidia.com
Jon
Hi Greg,
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 04:20:14PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.4.116 release. There are 8 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please let me know.
Responses should be made by Sun, 02 May 2021 14:19:04 +0000. Anything received after that time might be too late.
Build test: mips (gcc version 11.1.1 20210430): 65 configs -> no new failure arm (gcc version 11.1.1 20210430): 107 configs -> no new failure x86_64 (gcc version 10.2.1 20210110): 2 configs -> no failure
Boot test: x86_64: Booted on my test laptop. No regression. x86_64: Booted on qemu. No regression. arm: Booted on rpi3b. No regression.
Tested-by: Sudip Mukherjee sudip.mukherjee@codethink.co.uk
-- Regards Sudip
On 4/30/2021 7:20 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.4.116 release. There are 8 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please let me know.
Responses should be made by Sun, 02 May 2021 14:19:04 +0000. Anything received after that time might be too late.
The whole patch series can be found in one patch at: https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.4.116-rc1... or in the git tree and branch at: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-5.4.y and the diffstat can be found below.
thanks,
greg k-h
On ARCH_BRCMSTB, using 32-bit and 64-bit ARM kernels:
Tested-by: Florian Fainelli f.fainelli@gmail.com
On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 at 19:50, Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.4.116 release. There are 8 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please let me know.
Responses should be made by Sun, 02 May 2021 14:19:04 +0000. Anything received after that time might be too late.
The whole patch series can be found in one patch at: https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.4.116-rc1... or in the git tree and branch at: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-5.4.y and the diffstat can be found below.
thanks,
greg k-h
Results from Linaro’s test farm. No regressions on arm64, arm, x86_64, and i386.
Tested-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing lkft@linaro.org
## Build * kernel: 5.4.116-rc1 * git: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git * git branch: linux-5.4.y * git commit: 4f9e765c943d89435e58094c616a044b84fb55ef * git describe: v5.4.115-9-g4f9e765c943d * test details: https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-5.4.y/build/v5.4.11...
## No regressions (compared to v5.4.115)
## No fixes (compared to v5.4.115)
## Test result summary total: 71664, pass: 57763, fail: 2316, skip: 11326, xfail: 259,
## Build Summary * arc: 10 total, 10 passed, 0 failed * arm: 192 total, 192 passed, 0 failed * arm64: 26 total, 26 passed, 0 failed * dragonboard-410c: 1 total, 1 passed, 0 failed * hi6220-hikey: 1 total, 1 passed, 0 failed * i386: 15 total, 15 passed, 0 failed * juno-r2: 1 total, 1 passed, 0 failed * mips: 45 total, 45 passed, 0 failed * parisc: 9 total, 9 passed, 0 failed * powerpc: 27 total, 27 passed, 0 failed * riscv: 21 total, 21 passed, 0 failed * s390: 9 total, 9 passed, 0 failed * sh: 18 total, 18 passed, 0 failed * sparc: 9 total, 9 passed, 0 failed * x15: 1 total, 1 passed, 0 failed * x86: 1 total, 1 passed, 0 failed * x86_64: 26 total, 25 passed, 1 failed
## Test suites summary * fwts * igt-gpu-tools * install-android-platform-tools-r2600 * kselftest- * kselftest-android * kselftest-bpf * kselftest-breakpoints * kselftest-capabilities * kselftest-cgroup * kselftest-clone3 * kselftest-core * kselftest-cpu-hotplug * kselftest-cpufreq * kselftest-drivers * kselftest-efivarfs * kselftest-filesystems * kselftest-firmware * kselftest-fpu * kselftest-futex * kselftest-gpio * kselftest-intel_pstate * kselftest-ipc * kselftest-ir * kselftest-kcmp * kselftest-kexec * kselftest-kvm * kselftest-lib * kselftest-livepatch * kselftest-lkdtm * kselftest-membarrier * kselftest-memfd * kselftest-memory-hotplug * kselftest-mincore * kselftest-mount * kselftest-mqueue * kselftest-net * kselftest-netfilter * kselftest-nsfs * kselftest-openat2 * kselftest-pid_namespace * kselftest-pidfd * kselftest-proc * kselftest-pstore * kselftest-ptrace * kselftest-rseq * kselftest-rtc * kselftest-seccomp * kselftest-sigaltstack * kselftest-size * kselftest-splice * kselftest-static_keys * kselftest-sync * kselftest-sysctl * kselftest-tc-testing * kselftest-timens * kselftest-timers * kselftest-tmpfs * kselftest-tpm2 * kselftest-user * kselftest-vm * kselftest-x86 * kselftest-zram * kvm-unit-tests * libhugetlbfs * linux-log-parser * ltp-cap_bounds-tests * ltp-commands-tests * ltp-containers-tests * ltp-controllers-tests * ltp-cpuhotplug-tests * ltp-crypto-tests * ltp-cve-tests * ltp-dio-tests * ltp-fcntl-locktests-tests * ltp-filecaps-tests * ltp-fs-tests * ltp-fs_bind-tests * ltp-fs_perms_simple-tests * ltp-fsx-tests * ltp-hugetlb-tests * ltp-io-tests * ltp-ipc-tests * ltp-math-tests * ltp-mm-tests * ltp-nptl-tests * ltp-open-posix-tests * ltp-pty-tests * ltp-sched-tests * ltp-securebits-tests * ltp-syscalls-tests * ltp-tracing-tests * network-basic-tests * packetdrill * perf * rcutorture * ssuite * v4l2-compliance
-- Linaro LKFT https://lkft.linaro.org
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 04:20:14PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.4.116 release. There are 8 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please let me know.
Responses should be made by Sun, 02 May 2021 14:19:04 +0000. Anything received after that time might be too late.
Build results: total: 157 pass: 157 fail: 0 Qemu test results: total: 433 pass: 433 fail: 0
Tested-by: Guenter Roeck linux@roeck-us.net
Guenter
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Florian Fainelli -
Greg Kroah-Hartman -
Guenter Roeck -
Jon Hunter -
Naresh Kamboju -
Sudip Mukherjee