From 04514d13222f2c4c91adf0ecb21004cec3388795 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Borkmann Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:07:25 +0100 Subject: bpf: guarantee r1 to be ctx in case of bpf_helper_changes_pkt_data Some JITs don't cache skb context on stack in prologue, so when LD_ABS/IND is used and helper calls yield bpf_helper_changes_pkt_data() as true, then they temporarily save/restore skb pointer. However, the assumption that skb always has to be in r1 is a bit of a gamble. Right now it turned out to be true for all helpers listed in bpf_helper_changes_pkt_data(), but lets enforce that from verifier side, so that we make this a guarantee and bail out if the func proto is misconfigured in future helpers. In case of BPF helper calls from cBPF, bpf_helper_changes_pkt_data() is completely unrelevant here (since cBPF is context read-only) and therefore always false. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) (limited to 'kernel') diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index d459357..e39b013 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -1674,7 +1674,13 @@ static int check_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int func_id, int insn_idx) return -EINVAL; } + /* With LD_ABS/IND some JITs save/restore skb from r1. */ changes_data = bpf_helper_changes_pkt_data(fn->func); + if (changes_data && fn->arg1_type != ARG_PTR_TO_CTX) { + verbose(env, "kernel subsystem misconfigured func %s#%d: r1 != ctx\n", + func_id_name(func_id), func_id); + return -EINVAL; + } memset(&meta, 0, sizeof(meta)); meta.pkt_access = fn->pkt_access; -- cgit v1.1 From 4374f256ce8182019353c0c639bb8d0695b4c941 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Edward Cree Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:11:53 -0800 Subject: bpf/verifier: fix bounds calculation on BPF_RSH Incorrect signed bounds were being computed. If the old upper signed bound was positive and the old lower signed bound was negative, this could cause the new upper signed bound to be too low, leading to security issues. Fixes: b03c9f9fdc37 ("bpf/verifier: track signed and unsigned min/max values") Reported-by: Jann Horn Signed-off-by: Edward Cree Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov [jannh@google.com: changed description to reflect bug impact] Signed-off-by: Jann Horn Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) (limited to 'kernel') diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index e39b013..625e358 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -2190,20 +2190,22 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, insn->dst_reg); break; } - /* BPF_RSH is an unsigned shift, so make the appropriate casts */ - if (dst_reg->smin_value < 0) { - if (umin_val) { - /* Sign bit will be cleared */ - dst_reg->smin_value = 0; - } else { - /* Lost sign bit information */ - dst_reg->smin_value = S64_MIN; - dst_reg->smax_value = S64_MAX; - } - } else { - dst_reg->smin_value = - (u64)(dst_reg->smin_value) >> umax_val; - } + /* BPF_RSH is an unsigned shift. If the value in dst_reg might + * be negative, then either: + * 1) src_reg might be zero, so the sign bit of the result is + * unknown, so we lose our signed bounds + * 2) it's known negative, thus the unsigned bounds capture the + * signed bounds + * 3) the signed bounds cross zero, so they tell us nothing + * about the result + * If the value in dst_reg is known nonnegative, then again the + * unsigned bounts capture the signed bounds. + * Thus, in all cases it suffices to blow away our signed bounds + * and rely on inferring new ones from the unsigned bounds and + * var_off of the result. + */ + dst_reg->smin_value = S64_MIN; + dst_reg->smax_value = S64_MAX; if (src_known) dst_reg->var_off = tnum_rshift(dst_reg->var_off, umin_val); -- cgit v1.1 From 95a762e2c8c942780948091f8f2a4f32fce1ac6f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jann Horn Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:11:54 -0800 Subject: bpf: fix incorrect sign extension in check_alu_op() Distinguish between BPF_ALU64|BPF_MOV|BPF_K (load 32-bit immediate, sign-extended to 64-bit) and BPF_ALU|BPF_MOV|BPF_K (load 32-bit immediate, zero-padded to 64-bit); only perform sign extension in the first case. Starting with v4.14, this is exploitable by unprivileged users as long as the unprivileged_bpf_disabled sysctl isn't set. Debian assigned CVE-2017-16995 for this issue. v3: - add CVE number (Ben Hutchings) Fixes: 484611357c19 ("bpf: allow access into map value arrays") Signed-off-by: Jann Horn Acked-by: Edward Cree Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 8 +++++++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'kernel') diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 625e358..c086010 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -2408,7 +2408,13 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn) * remember the value we stored into this reg */ regs[insn->dst_reg].type = SCALAR_VALUE; - __mark_reg_known(regs + insn->dst_reg, insn->imm); + if (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64) { + __mark_reg_known(regs + insn->dst_reg, + insn->imm); + } else { + __mark_reg_known(regs + insn->dst_reg, + (u32)insn->imm); + } } } else if (opcode > BPF_END) { -- cgit v1.1 From 0c17d1d2c61936401f4702e1846e2c19b200f958 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jann Horn Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:11:55 -0800 Subject: bpf: fix incorrect tracking of register size truncation Properly handle register truncation to a smaller size. The old code first mirrors the clearing of the high 32 bits in the bitwise tristate representation, which is correct. But then, it computes the new arithmetic bounds as the intersection between the old arithmetic bounds and the bounds resulting from the bitwise tristate representation. Therefore, when coerce_reg_to_32() is called on a number with bounds [0xffff'fff8, 0x1'0000'0007], the verifier computes [0xffff'fff8, 0xffff'ffff] as bounds of the truncated number. This is incorrect: The truncated number could also be in the range [0, 7], and no meaningful arithmetic bounds can be computed in that case apart from the obvious [0, 0xffff'ffff]. Starting with v4.14, this is exploitable by unprivileged users as long as the unprivileged_bpf_disabled sysctl isn't set. Debian assigned CVE-2017-16996 for this issue. v2: - flip the mask during arithmetic bounds calculation (Ben Hutchings) v3: - add CVE number (Ben Hutchings) Fixes: b03c9f9fdc37 ("bpf/verifier: track signed and unsigned min/max values") Signed-off-by: Jann Horn Acked-by: Edward Cree Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) (limited to 'kernel') diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index c086010..f716bdf 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -1067,6 +1067,29 @@ static int check_ptr_alignment(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, strict); } +/* truncate register to smaller size (in bytes) + * must be called with size < BPF_REG_SIZE + */ +static void coerce_reg_to_size(struct bpf_reg_state *reg, int size) +{ + u64 mask; + + /* clear high bits in bit representation */ + reg->var_off = tnum_cast(reg->var_off, size); + + /* fix arithmetic bounds */ + mask = ((u64)1 << (size * 8)) - 1; + if ((reg->umin_value & ~mask) == (reg->umax_value & ~mask)) { + reg->umin_value &= mask; + reg->umax_value &= mask; + } else { + reg->umin_value = 0; + reg->umax_value = mask; + } + reg->smin_value = reg->umin_value; + reg->smax_value = reg->umax_value; +} + /* check whether memory at (regno + off) is accessible for t = (read | write) * if t==write, value_regno is a register which value is stored into memory * if t==read, value_regno is a register which will receive the value from memory @@ -1200,9 +1223,7 @@ static int check_mem_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx, u32 regn if (!err && size < BPF_REG_SIZE && value_regno >= 0 && t == BPF_READ && regs[value_regno].type == SCALAR_VALUE) { /* b/h/w load zero-extends, mark upper bits as known 0 */ - regs[value_regno].var_off = - tnum_cast(regs[value_regno].var_off, size); - __update_reg_bounds(®s[value_regno]); + coerce_reg_to_size(®s[value_regno], size); } return err; } @@ -1772,14 +1793,6 @@ static int check_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int func_id, int insn_idx) return 0; } -static void coerce_reg_to_32(struct bpf_reg_state *reg) -{ - /* clear high 32 bits */ - reg->var_off = tnum_cast(reg->var_off, 4); - /* Update bounds */ - __update_reg_bounds(reg); -} - static bool signed_add_overflows(s64 a, s64 b) { /* Do the add in u64, where overflow is well-defined */ @@ -2017,8 +2030,8 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, if (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) != BPF_ALU64) { /* 32-bit ALU ops are (32,32)->64 */ - coerce_reg_to_32(dst_reg); - coerce_reg_to_32(&src_reg); + coerce_reg_to_size(dst_reg, 4); + coerce_reg_to_size(&src_reg, 4); } smin_val = src_reg.smin_value; smax_val = src_reg.smax_value; @@ -2398,10 +2411,7 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn) return -EACCES; } mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, insn->dst_reg); - /* high 32 bits are known zero. */ - regs[insn->dst_reg].var_off = tnum_cast( - regs[insn->dst_reg].var_off, 4); - __update_reg_bounds(®s[insn->dst_reg]); + coerce_reg_to_size(®s[insn->dst_reg], 4); } } else { /* case: R = imm -- cgit v1.1 From 468f6eafa6c44cb2c5d8aad35e12f06c240a812a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jann Horn Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:11:56 -0800 Subject: bpf: fix 32-bit ALU op verification 32-bit ALU ops operate on 32-bit values and have 32-bit outputs. Adjust the verifier accordingly. Fixes: f1174f77b50c ("bpf/verifier: rework value tracking") Signed-off-by: Jann Horn Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) (limited to 'kernel') diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index f716bdf..ecdc265 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -2017,6 +2017,10 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, return 0; } +/* WARNING: This function does calculations on 64-bit values, but the actual + * execution may occur on 32-bit values. Therefore, things like bitshifts + * need extra checks in the 32-bit case. + */ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn, struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg, @@ -2027,12 +2031,8 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, bool src_known, dst_known; s64 smin_val, smax_val; u64 umin_val, umax_val; + u64 insn_bitness = (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64) ? 64 : 32; - if (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) != BPF_ALU64) { - /* 32-bit ALU ops are (32,32)->64 */ - coerce_reg_to_size(dst_reg, 4); - coerce_reg_to_size(&src_reg, 4); - } smin_val = src_reg.smin_value; smax_val = src_reg.smax_value; umin_val = src_reg.umin_value; @@ -2168,9 +2168,9 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg); break; case BPF_LSH: - if (umax_val > 63) { - /* Shifts greater than 63 are undefined. This includes - * shifts by a negative number. + if (umax_val >= insn_bitness) { + /* Shifts greater than 31 or 63 are undefined. + * This includes shifts by a negative number. */ mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, insn->dst_reg); break; @@ -2196,9 +2196,9 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg); break; case BPF_RSH: - if (umax_val > 63) { - /* Shifts greater than 63 are undefined. This includes - * shifts by a negative number. + if (umax_val >= insn_bitness) { + /* Shifts greater than 31 or 63 are undefined. + * This includes shifts by a negative number. */ mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, insn->dst_reg); break; @@ -2234,6 +2234,12 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, break; } + if (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) != BPF_ALU64) { + /* 32-bit ALU ops are (32,32)->32 */ + coerce_reg_to_size(dst_reg, 4); + coerce_reg_to_size(&src_reg, 4); + } + __reg_deduce_bounds(dst_reg); __reg_bound_offset(dst_reg); return 0; -- cgit v1.1 From ea25f914dc164c8d56b36147ecc86bc65f83c469 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jann Horn Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:11:57 -0800 Subject: bpf: fix missing error return in check_stack_boundary() Prevent indirect stack accesses at non-constant addresses, which would permit reading and corrupting spilled pointers. Fixes: f1174f77b50c ("bpf/verifier: rework value tracking") Signed-off-by: Jann Horn Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) (limited to 'kernel') diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index ecdc265..77e4b52 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -1303,6 +1303,7 @@ static int check_stack_boundary(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno, tnum_strn(tn_buf, sizeof(tn_buf), regs[regno].var_off); verbose(env, "invalid variable stack read R%d var_off=%s\n", regno, tn_buf); + return -EACCES; } off = regs[regno].off + regs[regno].var_off.value; if (off >= 0 || off < -MAX_BPF_STACK || off + access_size > 0 || -- cgit v1.1 From a5ec6ae161d72f01411169a938fa5f8baea16e8f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jann Horn Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:11:58 -0800 Subject: bpf: force strict alignment checks for stack pointers Force strict alignment checks for stack pointers because the tracking of stack spills relies on it; unaligned stack accesses can lead to corruption of spilled registers, which is exploitable. Fixes: f1174f77b50c ("bpf/verifier: rework value tracking") Signed-off-by: Jann Horn Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) (limited to 'kernel') diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 77e4b52..102c519 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -1059,6 +1059,11 @@ static int check_ptr_alignment(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, break; case PTR_TO_STACK: pointer_desc = "stack "; + /* The stack spill tracking logic in check_stack_write() + * and check_stack_read() relies on stack accesses being + * aligned. + */ + strict = true; break; default: break; -- cgit v1.1 From 179d1c5602997fef5a940c6ddcf31212cbfebd14 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jann Horn Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:11:59 -0800 Subject: bpf: don't prune branches when a scalar is replaced with a pointer This could be made safe by passing through a reference to env and checking for env->allow_ptr_leaks, but it would only work one way and is probably not worth the hassle - not doing it will not directly lead to program rejection. Fixes: f1174f77b50c ("bpf/verifier: rework value tracking") Signed-off-by: Jann Horn Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 15 +++++++-------- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) (limited to 'kernel') diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 102c519..982bd9e 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -3467,15 +3467,14 @@ static bool regsafe(struct bpf_reg_state *rold, struct bpf_reg_state *rcur, return range_within(rold, rcur) && tnum_in(rold->var_off, rcur->var_off); } else { - /* if we knew anything about the old value, we're not - * equal, because we can't know anything about the - * scalar value of the pointer in the new value. + /* We're trying to use a pointer in place of a scalar. + * Even if the scalar was unbounded, this could lead to + * pointer leaks because scalars are allowed to leak + * while pointers are not. We could make this safe in + * special cases if root is calling us, but it's + * probably not worth the hassle. */ - return rold->umin_value == 0 && - rold->umax_value == U64_MAX && - rold->smin_value == S64_MIN && - rold->smax_value == S64_MAX && - tnum_is_unknown(rold->var_off); + return false; } case PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE: /* If the new min/max/var_off satisfy the old ones and -- cgit v1.1 From bb7f0f989ca7de1153bd128a40a71709e339fa03 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Alexei Starovoitov Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:12:00 -0800 Subject: bpf: fix integer overflows There were various issues related to the limited size of integers used in the verifier: - `off + size` overflow in __check_map_access() - `off + reg->off` overflow in check_mem_access() - `off + reg->var_off.value` overflow or 32-bit truncation of `reg->var_off.value` in check_mem_access() - 32-bit truncation in check_stack_boundary() Make sure that any integer math cannot overflow by not allowing pointer math with large values. Also reduce the scope of "scalar op scalar" tracking. Fixes: f1174f77b50c ("bpf/verifier: rework value tracking") Reported-by: Jann Horn Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+) (limited to 'kernel') diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 982bd9e..86dfe6b 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -1819,6 +1819,41 @@ static bool signed_sub_overflows(s64 a, s64 b) return res > a; } +static bool check_reg_sane_offset(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, + const struct bpf_reg_state *reg, + enum bpf_reg_type type) +{ + bool known = tnum_is_const(reg->var_off); + s64 val = reg->var_off.value; + s64 smin = reg->smin_value; + + if (known && (val >= BPF_MAX_VAR_OFF || val <= -BPF_MAX_VAR_OFF)) { + verbose(env, "math between %s pointer and %lld is not allowed\n", + reg_type_str[type], val); + return false; + } + + if (reg->off >= BPF_MAX_VAR_OFF || reg->off <= -BPF_MAX_VAR_OFF) { + verbose(env, "%s pointer offset %d is not allowed\n", + reg_type_str[type], reg->off); + return false; + } + + if (smin == S64_MIN) { + verbose(env, "math between %s pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed\n", + reg_type_str[type]); + return false; + } + + if (smin >= BPF_MAX_VAR_OFF || smin <= -BPF_MAX_VAR_OFF) { + verbose(env, "value %lld makes %s pointer be out of bounds\n", + smin, reg_type_str[type]); + return false; + } + + return true; +} + /* 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 @@ -1887,6 +1922,10 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, dst_reg->type = ptr_reg->type; dst_reg->id = ptr_reg->id; + if (!check_reg_sane_offset(env, off_reg, ptr_reg->type) || + !check_reg_sane_offset(env, ptr_reg, ptr_reg->type)) + return -EINVAL; + switch (opcode) { case BPF_ADD: /* We can take a fixed offset as long as it doesn't overflow @@ -2017,6 +2056,9 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, return -EACCES; } + 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); @@ -2046,6 +2088,12 @@ 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 && + opcode != BPF_ADD && opcode != BPF_SUB && opcode != BPF_AND) { + __mark_reg_unknown(dst_reg); + return 0; + } + switch (opcode) { case BPF_ADD: if (signed_add_overflows(dst_reg->smin_value, smin_val) || -- cgit v1.1 From 82abbf8d2fc46d79611ab58daa7c608df14bb3ee Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Alexei Starovoitov Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:15:20 -0800 Subject: bpf: do not allow root to mangle valid pointers Do not allow root to convert valid pointers into unknown scalars. In particular disallow: ptr &= reg ptr <<= reg ptr += ptr and explicitly allow: ptr -= ptr since pkt_end - pkt == length 1. This minimizes amount of address leaks root can do. In the future may need to further tighten the leaks with kptr_restrict. 2. If program has such pointer math it's likely a user mistake and when verifier complains about it right away instead of many instructions later on invalid memory access it's easier for users to fix their progs. 3. when register holding a pointer cannot change to scalar it allows JITs to optimize better. Like 32-bit archs could use single register for pointers instead of a pair required to hold 64-bit scalars. 4. reduces architecture dependent behavior. Since code: r1 = r10; r1 &= 0xff; if (r1 ...) will behave differently arm64 vs x64 and offloaded vs native. A significant chunk of ptr mangling was allowed by commit f1174f77b50c ("bpf/verifier: rework value tracking") yet some of it was allowed even earlier. Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 102 +++++++++++++++++--------------------------------- 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-) (limited to 'kernel') diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 86dfe6b..04b2487 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -1890,29 +1890,25 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, if (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) != BPF_ALU64) { /* 32-bit ALU ops on pointers produce (meaningless) scalars */ - if (!env->allow_ptr_leaks) - verbose(env, - "R%d 32-bit pointer arithmetic prohibited\n", - dst); + verbose(env, + "R%d 32-bit pointer arithmetic prohibited\n", + dst); return -EACCES; } if (ptr_reg->type == PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL) { - if (!env->allow_ptr_leaks) - verbose(env, "R%d pointer arithmetic on PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL prohibited, null-check it first\n", - dst); + verbose(env, "R%d pointer arithmetic on PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL prohibited, null-check it first\n", + dst); return -EACCES; } if (ptr_reg->type == CONST_PTR_TO_MAP) { - if (!env->allow_ptr_leaks) - verbose(env, "R%d pointer arithmetic on CONST_PTR_TO_MAP prohibited\n", - dst); + verbose(env, "R%d pointer arithmetic on CONST_PTR_TO_MAP prohibited\n", + dst); return -EACCES; } if (ptr_reg->type == PTR_TO_PACKET_END) { - if (!env->allow_ptr_leaks) - verbose(env, "R%d pointer arithmetic on PTR_TO_PACKET_END prohibited\n", - dst); + verbose(env, "R%d pointer arithmetic on PTR_TO_PACKET_END prohibited\n", + dst); return -EACCES; } @@ -1979,9 +1975,8 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, case BPF_SUB: if (dst_reg == off_reg) { /* scalar -= pointer. Creates an unknown scalar */ - if (!env->allow_ptr_leaks) - verbose(env, "R%d tried to subtract pointer from scalar\n", - dst); + verbose(env, "R%d tried to subtract pointer from scalar\n", + dst); return -EACCES; } /* We don't allow subtraction from FP, because (according to @@ -1989,9 +1984,8 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, * be able to deal with it. */ if (ptr_reg->type == PTR_TO_STACK) { - if (!env->allow_ptr_leaks) - verbose(env, "R%d subtraction from stack pointer prohibited\n", - dst); + verbose(env, "R%d subtraction from stack pointer prohibited\n", + dst); return -EACCES; } if (known && (ptr_reg->off - smin_val == @@ -2040,19 +2034,14 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, case BPF_AND: case BPF_OR: case BPF_XOR: - /* bitwise ops on pointers are troublesome, prohibit for now. - * (However, in principle we could allow some cases, e.g. - * ptr &= ~3 which would reduce min_value by 3.) - */ - if (!env->allow_ptr_leaks) - verbose(env, "R%d bitwise operator %s on pointer prohibited\n", - dst, bpf_alu_string[opcode >> 4]); + /* bitwise ops on pointers are troublesome, prohibit. */ + verbose(env, "R%d bitwise operator %s on pointer prohibited\n", + dst, bpf_alu_string[opcode >> 4]); return -EACCES; default: /* other operators (e.g. MUL,LSH) produce non-pointer results */ - if (!env->allow_ptr_leaks) - verbose(env, "R%d pointer arithmetic with %s operator prohibited\n", - dst, bpf_alu_string[opcode >> 4]); + verbose(env, "R%d pointer arithmetic with %s operator prohibited\n", + dst, bpf_alu_string[opcode >> 4]); return -EACCES; } @@ -2308,7 +2297,6 @@ static int adjust_reg_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_reg_state *regs = cur_regs(env), *dst_reg, *src_reg; struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg = NULL, off_reg = {0}; u8 opcode = BPF_OP(insn->code); - int rc; dst_reg = ®s[insn->dst_reg]; src_reg = NULL; @@ -2319,43 +2307,29 @@ static int adjust_reg_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, if (src_reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE) { if (dst_reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE) { /* Combining two pointers by any ALU op yields - * an arbitrary scalar. + * an arbitrary scalar. Disallow all math except + * pointer subtraction */ - if (!env->allow_ptr_leaks) { - verbose(env, "R%d pointer %s pointer prohibited\n", - insn->dst_reg, - bpf_alu_string[opcode >> 4]); - return -EACCES; + if (opcode == BPF_SUB){ + mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, insn->dst_reg); + return 0; } - mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, insn->dst_reg); - return 0; + verbose(env, "R%d pointer %s pointer prohibited\n", + insn->dst_reg, + bpf_alu_string[opcode >> 4]); + return -EACCES; } else { /* scalar += pointer * This is legal, but we have to reverse our * src/dest handling in computing the range */ - rc = adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(env, insn, - src_reg, dst_reg); - if (rc == -EACCES && env->allow_ptr_leaks) { - /* scalar += unknown scalar */ - __mark_reg_unknown(&off_reg); - return adjust_scalar_min_max_vals( - env, insn, - dst_reg, off_reg); - } - return rc; + return adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(env, insn, + src_reg, dst_reg); } } else if (ptr_reg) { /* pointer += scalar */ - rc = adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(env, insn, - dst_reg, src_reg); - if (rc == -EACCES && env->allow_ptr_leaks) { - /* unknown scalar += scalar */ - __mark_reg_unknown(dst_reg); - return adjust_scalar_min_max_vals( - env, insn, dst_reg, *src_reg); - } - return rc; + return adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(env, insn, + dst_reg, src_reg); } } else { /* Pretend the src is a reg with a known value, since we only @@ -2364,17 +2338,9 @@ static int adjust_reg_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, off_reg.type = SCALAR_VALUE; __mark_reg_known(&off_reg, insn->imm); src_reg = &off_reg; - if (ptr_reg) { /* pointer += K */ - rc = adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(env, insn, - ptr_reg, src_reg); - if (rc == -EACCES && env->allow_ptr_leaks) { - /* unknown scalar += K */ - __mark_reg_unknown(dst_reg); - return adjust_scalar_min_max_vals( - env, insn, dst_reg, off_reg); - } - return rc; - } + if (ptr_reg) /* pointer += K */ + return adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(env, insn, + ptr_reg, src_reg); } /* Got here implies adding two SCALAR_VALUEs */ -- cgit v1.1