From: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net
[ Upstream commit 28131e9d933339a92f78e7ab6429f4aaaa07061c ]
syzbot reported a shift-out-of-bounds that KUBSAN observed in the interpreter:
[...] UBSAN: shift-out-of-bounds in kernel/bpf/core.c:1420:2 shift exponent 255 is too large for 64-bit type 'long long unsigned int' CPU: 1 PID: 11097 Comm: syz-executor.4 Not tainted 5.12.0-rc2-syzkaller #0 Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 01/01/2011 Call Trace: __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:79 [inline] dump_stack+0x141/0x1d7 lib/dump_stack.c:120 ubsan_epilogue+0xb/0x5a lib/ubsan.c:148 __ubsan_handle_shift_out_of_bounds.cold+0xb1/0x181 lib/ubsan.c:327 ___bpf_prog_run.cold+0x19/0x56c kernel/bpf/core.c:1420 __bpf_prog_run32+0x8f/0xd0 kernel/bpf/core.c:1735 bpf_dispatcher_nop_func include/linux/bpf.h:644 [inline] bpf_prog_run_pin_on_cpu include/linux/filter.h:624 [inline] bpf_prog_run_clear_cb include/linux/filter.h:755 [inline] run_filter+0x1a1/0x470 net/packet/af_packet.c:2031 packet_rcv+0x313/0x13e0 net/packet/af_packet.c:2104 dev_queue_xmit_nit+0x7c2/0xa90 net/core/dev.c:2387 xmit_one net/core/dev.c:3588 [inline] dev_hard_start_xmit+0xad/0x920 net/core/dev.c:3609 __dev_queue_xmit+0x2121/0x2e00 net/core/dev.c:4182 __bpf_tx_skb net/core/filter.c:2116 [inline] __bpf_redirect_no_mac net/core/filter.c:2141 [inline] __bpf_redirect+0x548/0xc80 net/core/filter.c:2164 ____bpf_clone_redirect net/core/filter.c:2448 [inline] bpf_clone_redirect+0x2ae/0x420 net/core/filter.c:2420 ___bpf_prog_run+0x34e1/0x77d0 kernel/bpf/core.c:1523 __bpf_prog_run512+0x99/0xe0 kernel/bpf/core.c:1737 bpf_dispatcher_nop_func include/linux/bpf.h:644 [inline] bpf_test_run+0x3ed/0xc50 net/bpf/test_run.c:50 bpf_prog_test_run_skb+0xabc/0x1c50 net/bpf/test_run.c:582 bpf_prog_test_run kernel/bpf/syscall.c:3127 [inline] __do_sys_bpf+0x1ea9/0x4f00 kernel/bpf/syscall.c:4406 do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x70 arch/x86/entry/common.c:46 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae [...]
Generally speaking, KUBSAN reports from the kernel should be fixed. However, in case of BPF, this particular report caused concerns since the large shift is not wrong from BPF point of view, just undefined. In the verifier, K-based shifts that are >= {64,32} (depending on the bitwidth of the instruction) are already rejected. The register-based cases were not given their content might not be known at verification time. Ideas such as verifier instruction rewrite with an additional AND instruction for the source register were brought up, but regularly rejected due to the additional runtime overhead they incur.
As Edward Cree rightly put it:
Shifts by more than insn bitness are legal in the BPF ISA; they are implementation-defined behaviour [of the underlying architecture], rather than UB, and have been made legal for performance reasons. Each of the JIT backends compiles the BPF shift operations to machine instructions which produce implementation-defined results in such a case; the resulting contents of the register may be arbitrary but program behaviour as a whole remains defined.
Guard checks in the fast path (i.e. affecting JITted code) will thus not be accepted.
The case of division by zero is not truly analogous here, as division instructions on many of the JIT-targeted architectures will raise a machine exception / fault on division by zero, whereas (to the best of my knowledge) none will do so on an out-of-bounds shift.
Given the KUBSAN report only affects the BPF interpreter, but not JITs, one solution is to add the ANDs with 63 or 31 into ___bpf_prog_run(). That would make the shifts defined, and thus shuts up KUBSAN, and the compiler would optimize out the AND on any CPU that interprets the shift amounts modulo the width anyway (e.g., confirmed from disassembly that on x86-64 and arm64 the generated interpreter code is the same before and after this fix).
The BPF interpreter is slow path, and most likely compiled out anyway as distros select BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON to avoid speculative execution of BPF instructions by the interpreter. Given the main argument was to avoid sacrificing performance, the fact that the AND is optimized away from compiler for mainstream archs helps as well as a solution moving forward. Also add a comment on LSH/RSH/ARSH translation for JIT authors to provide guidance when they see the ___bpf_prog_run() interpreter code and use it as a model for a new JIT backend.
Reported-by: syzbot+bed360704c521841c85d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Reported-by: Kurt Manucredo fuzzybritches0@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers ebiggers@kernel.org Co-developed-by: Eric Biggers ebiggers@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov ast@kernel.org Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko andrii@kernel.org Tested-by: syzbot+bed360704c521841c85d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Cc: Edward Cree ecree.xilinx@gmail.com Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/0000000000008f912605bd30d5d7@google.com Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/bac16d8d-c174-bdc4-91bd-bfa62b410190@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org --- kernel/bpf/core.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c index 182e162f8fd0..239c6b3b5993 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c @@ -1395,29 +1395,54 @@ static u64 ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn, u64 *stack) select_insn: goto *jumptable[insn->code];
- /* ALU */ -#define ALU(OPCODE, OP) \ - ALU64_##OPCODE##_X: \ - DST = DST OP SRC; \ - CONT; \ - ALU_##OPCODE##_X: \ - DST = (u32) DST OP (u32) SRC; \ - CONT; \ - ALU64_##OPCODE##_K: \ - DST = DST OP IMM; \ - CONT; \ - ALU_##OPCODE##_K: \ - DST = (u32) DST OP (u32) IMM; \ + /* Explicitly mask the register-based shift amounts with 63 or 31 + * to avoid undefined behavior. Normally this won't affect the + * generated code, for example, in case of native 64 bit archs such + * as x86-64 or arm64, the compiler is optimizing the AND away for + * the interpreter. In case of JITs, each of the JIT backends compiles + * the BPF shift operations to machine instructions which produce + * implementation-defined results in such a case; the resulting + * contents of the register may be arbitrary, but program behaviour + * as a whole remains defined. In other words, in case of JIT backends, + * the AND must /not/ be added to the emitted LSH/RSH/ARSH translation. + */ + /* ALU (shifts) */ +#define SHT(OPCODE, OP) \ + ALU64_##OPCODE##_X: \ + DST = DST OP (SRC & 63); \ + CONT; \ + ALU_##OPCODE##_X: \ + DST = (u32) DST OP ((u32) SRC & 31); \ + CONT; \ + ALU64_##OPCODE##_K: \ + DST = DST OP IMM; \ + CONT; \ + ALU_##OPCODE##_K: \ + DST = (u32) DST OP (u32) IMM; \ + CONT; + /* ALU (rest) */ +#define ALU(OPCODE, OP) \ + ALU64_##OPCODE##_X: \ + DST = DST OP SRC; \ + CONT; \ + ALU_##OPCODE##_X: \ + DST = (u32) DST OP (u32) SRC; \ + CONT; \ + ALU64_##OPCODE##_K: \ + DST = DST OP IMM; \ + CONT; \ + ALU_##OPCODE##_K: \ + DST = (u32) DST OP (u32) IMM; \ CONT; - ALU(ADD, +) ALU(SUB, -) ALU(AND, &) ALU(OR, |) - ALU(LSH, <<) - ALU(RSH, >>) ALU(XOR, ^) ALU(MUL, *) + SHT(LSH, <<) + SHT(RSH, >>) +#undef SHT #undef ALU ALU_NEG: DST = (u32) -DST; @@ -1442,13 +1467,13 @@ static u64 ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn, u64 *stack) insn++; CONT; ALU_ARSH_X: - DST = (u64) (u32) (((s32) DST) >> SRC); + DST = (u64) (u32) (((s32) DST) >> (SRC & 31)); CONT; ALU_ARSH_K: DST = (u64) (u32) (((s32) DST) >> IMM); CONT; ALU64_ARSH_X: - (*(s64 *) &DST) >>= SRC; + (*(s64 *) &DST) >>= (SRC & 63); CONT; ALU64_ARSH_K: (*(s64 *) &DST) >>= IMM;