The patch below does not apply to the 4.19-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to stable@vger.kernel.org.
thanks,
greg k-h
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
From 3844d153a41adea718202c10ae91dc96b37453b5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2022 14:47:25 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] bpf: Fix insufficient bounds propagation from adjust_scalar_min_max_vals
Kuee reported a corner case where the tnum becomes constant after the call to __reg_bound_offset(), but the register's bounds are not, that is, its min bounds are still not equal to the register's max bounds.
This in turn allows to leak pointers through turning a pointer register as is into an unknown scalar via adjust_ptr_min_max_vals().
Before:
func#0 @0 0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 0: (b7) r0 = 1 ; R0_w=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) 1: (b7) r3 = 0 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 2: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 3: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 4: (47) r3 |= 32767 ; R3_w=scalar(smin=-9223372036854743041,umin=32767,var_off=(0x7fff; 0xffffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) 5: (75) if r3 s>= 0x0 goto pc+1 ; R3_w=scalar(umin=9223372036854808575,var_off=(0x8000000000007fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 6: (95) exit
from 5 to 7: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 7: (d5) if r3 s<= 0x8000 goto pc+1 ; R3=scalar(umin=32769,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 8: (95) exit
from 7 to 9: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x8000)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 9: (07) r3 += -32767 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) <--- [*] 10: (95) exit
What can be seen here is that R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x8000)) after the operation R3 += -32767 results in a 'malformed' constant, that is, R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)). Intersecting with var_off has not been done at that point via __update_reg_bounds(), which would have improved the umax to be equal to umin.
Refactor the tnum <> min/max bounds information flow into a reg_bounds_sync() helper and use it consistently everywhere. After the fix, bounds have been corrected to R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) and thus the register is regarded as a 'proper' constant scalar of 0.
After:
func#0 @0 0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 0: (b7) r0 = 1 ; R0_w=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) 1: (b7) r3 = 0 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 2: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 3: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 4: (47) r3 |= 32767 ; R3_w=scalar(smin=-9223372036854743041,umin=32767,var_off=(0x7fff; 0xffffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) 5: (75) if r3 s>= 0x0 goto pc+1 ; R3_w=scalar(umin=9223372036854808575,var_off=(0x8000000000007fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 6: (95) exit
from 5 to 7: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 7: (d5) if r3 s<= 0x8000 goto pc+1 ; R3=scalar(umin=32769,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 8: (95) exit
from 7 to 9: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x8000)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 9: (07) r3 += -32767 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) <--- [*] 10: (95) exit
Fixes: b03c9f9fdc37 ("bpf/verifier: track signed and unsigned min/max values") Reported-by: Kuee K1r0a liulin063@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko andrii@kernel.org Acked-by: John Fastabend john.fastabend@gmail.com Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220701124727.11153-2-daniel@iogearbox.net
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index ec164b3c0fa2..0efbac0fd126 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -1562,6 +1562,21 @@ static void __reg_bound_offset(struct bpf_reg_state *reg) reg->var_off = tnum_or(tnum_clear_subreg(var64_off), var32_off); }
+static void reg_bounds_sync(struct bpf_reg_state *reg) +{ + /* We might have learned new bounds from the var_off. */ + __update_reg_bounds(reg); + /* We might have learned something about the sign bit. */ + __reg_deduce_bounds(reg); + /* We might have learned some bits from the bounds. */ + __reg_bound_offset(reg); + /* Intersecting with the old var_off might have improved our bounds + * slightly, e.g. if umax was 0x7f...f and var_off was (0; 0xf...fc), + * then new var_off is (0; 0x7f...fc) which improves our umax. + */ + __update_reg_bounds(reg); +} + static bool __reg32_bound_s64(s32 a) { return a >= 0 && a <= S32_MAX; @@ -1603,16 +1618,8 @@ static void __reg_combine_32_into_64(struct bpf_reg_state *reg) * so they do not impact tnum bounds calculation. */ __mark_reg64_unbounded(reg); - __update_reg_bounds(reg); } - - /* Intersecting with the old var_off might have improved our bounds - * slightly. e.g. if umax was 0x7f...f and var_off was (0; 0xf...fc), - * then new var_off is (0; 0x7f...fc) which improves our umax. - */ - __reg_deduce_bounds(reg); - __reg_bound_offset(reg); - __update_reg_bounds(reg); + reg_bounds_sync(reg); }
static bool __reg64_bound_s32(s64 a) @@ -1628,7 +1635,6 @@ static bool __reg64_bound_u32(u64 a) static void __reg_combine_64_into_32(struct bpf_reg_state *reg) { __mark_reg32_unbounded(reg); - if (__reg64_bound_s32(reg->smin_value) && __reg64_bound_s32(reg->smax_value)) { reg->s32_min_value = (s32)reg->smin_value; reg->s32_max_value = (s32)reg->smax_value; @@ -1637,14 +1643,7 @@ static void __reg_combine_64_into_32(struct bpf_reg_state *reg) reg->u32_min_value = (u32)reg->umin_value; reg->u32_max_value = (u32)reg->umax_value; } - - /* Intersecting with the old var_off might have improved our bounds - * slightly. e.g. if umax was 0x7f...f and var_off was (0; 0xf...fc), - * then new var_off is (0; 0x7f...fc) which improves our umax. - */ - __reg_deduce_bounds(reg); - __reg_bound_offset(reg); - __update_reg_bounds(reg); + reg_bounds_sync(reg); }
/* Mark a register as having a completely unknown (scalar) value. */ @@ -6943,9 +6942,7 @@ static void do_refine_retval_range(struct bpf_reg_state *regs, int ret_type, ret_reg->s32_max_value = meta->msize_max_value; ret_reg->smin_value = -MAX_ERRNO; ret_reg->s32_min_value = -MAX_ERRNO; - __reg_deduce_bounds(ret_reg); - __reg_bound_offset(ret_reg); - __update_reg_bounds(ret_reg); + reg_bounds_sync(ret_reg); }
static int @@ -8202,11 +8199,7 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
if (!check_reg_sane_offset(env, dst_reg, ptr_reg->type)) return -EINVAL; - - __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg); - __reg_deduce_bounds(dst_reg); - __reg_bound_offset(dst_reg); - + reg_bounds_sync(dst_reg); if (sanitize_check_bounds(env, insn, dst_reg) < 0) return -EACCES; if (sanitize_needed(opcode)) { @@ -8944,10 +8937,7 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, /* ALU32 ops are zero extended into 64bit register */ if (alu32) zext_32_to_64(dst_reg); - - __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg); - __reg_deduce_bounds(dst_reg); - __reg_bound_offset(dst_reg); + reg_bounds_sync(dst_reg); return 0; }
@@ -9136,10 +9126,7 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn) insn->dst_reg); } zext_32_to_64(dst_reg); - - __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg); - __reg_deduce_bounds(dst_reg); - __reg_bound_offset(dst_reg); + reg_bounds_sync(dst_reg); } } else { /* case: R = imm @@ -9742,21 +9729,8 @@ static void __reg_combine_min_max(struct bpf_reg_state *src_reg, dst_reg->smax_value); src_reg->var_off = dst_reg->var_off = tnum_intersect(src_reg->var_off, dst_reg->var_off); - /* We might have learned new bounds from the var_off. */ - __update_reg_bounds(src_reg); - __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg); - /* We might have learned something about the sign bit. */ - __reg_deduce_bounds(src_reg); - __reg_deduce_bounds(dst_reg); - /* We might have learned some bits from the bounds. */ - __reg_bound_offset(src_reg); - __reg_bound_offset(dst_reg); - /* Intersecting with the old var_off might have improved our bounds - * slightly. e.g. if umax was 0x7f...f and var_off was (0; 0xf...fc), - * then new var_off is (0; 0x7f...fc) which improves our umax. - */ - __update_reg_bounds(src_reg); - __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg); + reg_bounds_sync(src_reg); + reg_bounds_sync(dst_reg); }
static void reg_combine_min_max(struct bpf_reg_state *true_src,