From c366287ebd698ef5e3de300d90cd62ee9ee7373e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 17:43:23 -0800 Subject: bpf: fix divides by zero Divides by zero are not nice, lets avoid them if possible. Also do_div() seems not needed when dealing with 32bit operands, but this seems a minor detail. Fixes: bd4cf0ed331a ("net: filter: rework/optimize internal BPF interpreter's instruction set") Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reported-by: syzbot <syzkaller@googlegroups.com> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> --- kernel/bpf/core.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'kernel/bpf') diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c index 51ec2dd..7949e8b 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c @@ -956,7 +956,7 @@ select_insn: DST = tmp; CONT; ALU_MOD_X: - if (unlikely(SRC == 0)) + if (unlikely((u32)SRC == 0)) return 0; tmp = (u32) DST; DST = do_div(tmp, (u32) SRC); @@ -975,7 +975,7 @@ select_insn: DST = div64_u64(DST, SRC); CONT; ALU_DIV_X: - if (unlikely(SRC == 0)) + if (unlikely((u32)SRC == 0)) return 0; tmp = (u32) DST; do_div(tmp, (u32) SRC); -- cgit v1.1 From 68fda450a7df51cff9e5a4d4a4d9d0d5f2589153 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 18:59:52 -0800 Subject: bpf: fix 32-bit divide by zero due to some JITs doing if (src_reg == 0) check in 64-bit mode for div/mod operations mask upper 32-bits of src register before doing the check Fixes: 622582786c9e ("net: filter: x86: internal BPF JIT") Fixes: 7a12b5031c6b ("sparc64: Add eBPF JIT.") Reported-by: syzbot+48340bb518e88849e2e3@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) (limited to 'kernel/bpf') diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 20eb04f..b744834 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -4445,6 +4445,24 @@ static int fixup_bpf_calls(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) int i, cnt, delta = 0; for (i = 0; i < insn_cnt; i++, insn++) { + if (insn->code == (BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD | BPF_X) || + insn->code == (BPF_ALU | BPF_DIV | BPF_X)) { + /* due to JIT bugs clear upper 32-bits of src register + * before div/mod operation + */ + insn_buf[0] = BPF_MOV32_REG(insn->src_reg, insn->src_reg); + insn_buf[1] = *insn; + cnt = 2; + new_prog = bpf_patch_insn_data(env, i + delta, insn_buf, cnt); + if (!new_prog) + return -ENOMEM; + + delta += cnt - 1; + env->prog = prog = new_prog; + insn = new_prog->insnsi + i + delta; + continue; + } + if (insn->code != (BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL)) continue; -- cgit v1.1 From f37a8cb84cce18762e8f86a70bd6a49a66ab964c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 23:30:10 +0100 Subject: bpf: reject stores into ctx via st and xadd Alexei found that verifier does not reject stores into context via BPF_ST instead of BPF_STX. And while looking at it, we also should not allow XADD variant of BPF_STX. The context rewriter is only assuming either BPF_LDX_MEM- or BPF_STX_MEM-type operations, thus reject anything other than that so that assumptions in the rewriter properly hold. Add test cases as well for BPF selftests. Fixes: d691f9e8d440 ("bpf: allow programs to write to certain skb fields") Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+) (limited to 'kernel/bpf') diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index b744834..eb062b0 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -978,6 +978,13 @@ static bool is_pointer_value(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno) return __is_pointer_value(env->allow_ptr_leaks, cur_regs(env) + regno); } +static bool is_ctx_reg(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno) +{ + const struct bpf_reg_state *reg = cur_regs(env) + regno; + + return reg->type == PTR_TO_CTX; +} + static int check_pkt_ptr_alignment(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, const struct bpf_reg_state *reg, int off, int size, bool strict) @@ -1258,6 +1265,12 @@ static int check_xadd(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx, struct bpf_ins return -EACCES; } + if (is_ctx_reg(env, insn->dst_reg)) { + verbose(env, "BPF_XADD stores into R%d context is not allowed\n", + insn->dst_reg); + return -EACCES; + } + /* check whether atomic_add can read the memory */ err = check_mem_access(env, insn_idx, insn->dst_reg, insn->off, BPF_SIZE(insn->code), BPF_READ, -1); @@ -3993,6 +4006,12 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) if (err) return err; + if (is_ctx_reg(env, insn->dst_reg)) { + verbose(env, "BPF_ST stores into R%d context is not allowed\n", + insn->dst_reg); + return -EACCES; + } + /* check that memory (dst_reg + off) is writeable */ err = check_mem_access(env, insn_idx, insn->dst_reg, insn->off, BPF_SIZE(insn->code), BPF_WRITE, -- cgit v1.1 From 6f16101e6a8b4324c36e58a29d9e0dbb287cdedb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 01:15:21 +0100 Subject: bpf: mark dst unknown on inconsistent {s, u}bounds adjustments syzkaller generated a BPF proglet and triggered a warning with the following: 0: (b7) r0 = 0 1: (d5) if r0 s<= 0x0 goto pc+0 R0=inv0 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 2: (1f) r0 -= r1 R0=inv0 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 verifier internal error: known but bad sbounds What happens is that in the first insn, r0's min/max value are both 0 due to the immediate assignment, later in the jsle test the bounds are updated for the min value in the false path, meaning, they yield smin_val = 1, smax_val = 0, and when ctx pointer is subtracted from r0, verifier bails out with the internal error and throwing a WARN since smin_val != smax_val for the known constant. For min_val > max_val scenario it means that reg_set_min_max() and reg_set_min_max_inv() (which both refine existing bounds) demonstrated that such branch cannot be taken at runtime. In above scenario for the case where it will be taken, the existing [0, 0] bounds are kept intact. Meaning, the rejection is not due to a verifier internal error, and therefore the WARN() is not necessary either. We could just reject such cases in adjust_{ptr,scalar}_min_max_vals() when either known scalars have smin_val != smax_val or umin_val != umax_val or any scalar reg with bounds smin_val > smax_val or umin_val > umax_val. However, there may be a small risk of breakage of buggy programs, so handle this more gracefully and in adjust_{ptr,scalar}_min_max_vals() just taint the dst reg as unknown scalar when we see ops with such kind of src reg. Reported-by: syzbot+6d362cadd45dc0a12ba4@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) (limited to 'kernel/bpf') diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index eb062b0..13551e6 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -1895,17 +1895,13 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, dst_reg = ®s[dst]; - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(known && (smin_val != smax_val))) { - print_verifier_state(env, env->cur_state); - verbose(env, - "verifier internal error: known but bad sbounds\n"); - return -EINVAL; - } - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(known && (umin_val != umax_val))) { - print_verifier_state(env, env->cur_state); - verbose(env, - "verifier internal error: known but bad ubounds\n"); - return -EINVAL; + if ((known && (smin_val != smax_val || umin_val != umax_val)) || + smin_val > smax_val || umin_val > umax_val) { + /* Taint dst register if offset had invalid bounds derived from + * e.g. dead branches. + */ + __mark_reg_unknown(dst_reg); + return 0; } if (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) != BPF_ALU64) { @@ -2097,6 +2093,15 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, src_known = tnum_is_const(src_reg.var_off); dst_known = tnum_is_const(dst_reg->var_off); + if ((src_known && (smin_val != smax_val || umin_val != umax_val)) || + smin_val > smax_val || umin_val > umax_val) { + /* Taint dst register if offset had invalid bounds derived from + * e.g. dead branches. + */ + __mark_reg_unknown(dst_reg); + return 0; + } + if (!src_known && opcode != BPF_ADD && opcode != BPF_SUB && opcode != BPF_AND) { __mark_reg_unknown(dst_reg); -- cgit v1.1