linux.git/kernel/bpf/core.c, branch v5.10.258 Clone of https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git bpf: fix potential error return 2025-01-09T12:25:05+00:00 Anton Protopopov aspsk@isovalent.com 2024-12-10T11:42:45+00:00 e529b4686038afd814c9d00c5270bd90a54b39db [ Upstream commit c4441ca86afe4814039ee1b32c39d833c1a16bbc ] The bpf_remove_insns() function returns WARN_ON_ONCE(error), where error is a result of bpf_adj_branches(), and thus should be always 0 However, if for any reason it is not 0, then it will be converted to boolean by WARN_ON_ONCE and returned to user space as 1, not an actual error value. Fix this by returning the original err after the WARN check. Signed-off-by: Anton Protopopov <aspsk@isovalent.com> Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241210114245.836164-1-aspsk@isovalent.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> 
[ Upstream commit c4441ca86afe4814039ee1b32c39d833c1a16bbc ]

The bpf_remove_insns() function returns WARN_ON_ONCE(error), where
error is a result of bpf_adj_branches(), and thus should be always 0
However, if for any reason it is not 0, then it will be converted to
boolean by WARN_ON_ONCE and returned to user space as 1, not an actual
error value. Fix this by returning the original err after the WARN check.

Signed-off-by: Anton Protopopov <aspsk@isovalent.com>
Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241210114245.836164-1-aspsk@isovalent.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
bpf: Detect IP == ksym.end as part of BPF program 2023-11-28T16:54:49+00:00 Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi memxor@gmail.com 2023-09-12T23:32:08+00:00 6058e4829696412457729a00734969acc6fd1d18 [ Upstream commit 66d9111f3517f85ef2af0337ece02683ce0faf21 ] Now that bpf_throw kfunc is the first such call instruction that has noreturn semantics within the verifier, this also kicks in dead code elimination in unprecedented ways. For one, any instruction following a bpf_throw call will never be marked as seen. Moreover, if a callchain ends up throwing, any instructions after the call instruction to the eventually throwing subprog in callers will also never be marked as seen. The tempting way to fix this would be to emit extra 'int3' instructions which bump the jited_len of a program, and ensure that during runtime when a program throws, we can discover its boundaries even if the call instruction to bpf_throw (or to subprogs that always throw) is emitted as the final instruction in the program. An example of such a program would be this: do_something(): ... r0 = 0 exit foo(): r1 = 0 call bpf_throw r0 = 0 exit bar(cond): if r1 != 0 goto pc+2 call do_something exit call foo r0 = 0 // Never seen by verifier exit // main(ctx): r1 = ... call bar r0 = 0 exit Here, if we do end up throwing, the stacktrace would be the following: bpf_throw foo bar main In bar, the final instruction emitted will be the call to foo, as such, the return address will be the subsequent instruction (which the JIT emits as int3 on x86). This will end up lying outside the jited_len of the program, thus, when unwinding, we will fail to discover the return address as belonging to any program and end up in a panic due to the unreliable stack unwinding of BPF programs that we never expect. To remedy this case, make bpf_prog_ksym_find treat IP == ksym.end as part of the BPF program, so that is_bpf_text_address returns true when such a case occurs, and we are able to unwind reliably when the final instruction ends up being a call instruction. Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230912233214.1518551-12-memxor@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> 
[ Upstream commit 66d9111f3517f85ef2af0337ece02683ce0faf21 ]

Now that bpf_throw kfunc is the first such call instruction that has
noreturn semantics within the verifier, this also kicks in dead code
elimination in unprecedented ways. For one, any instruction following
a bpf_throw call will never be marked as seen. Moreover, if a callchain
ends up throwing, any instructions after the call instruction to the
eventually throwing subprog in callers will also never be marked as
seen.

The tempting way to fix this would be to emit extra 'int3' instructions
which bump the jited_len of a program, and ensure that during runtime
when a program throws, we can discover its boundaries even if the call
instruction to bpf_throw (or to subprogs that always throw) is emitted
as the final instruction in the program.

An example of such a program would be this:

do_something():
	...
	r0 = 0
	exit

foo():
	r1 = 0
	call bpf_throw
	r0 = 0
	exit

bar(cond):
	if r1 != 0 goto pc+2
	call do_something
	exit
	call foo
	r0 = 0  // Never seen by verifier
	exit	//

main(ctx):
	r1 = ...
	call bar
	r0 = 0
	exit

Here, if we do end up throwing, the stacktrace would be the following:

bpf_throw
foo
bar
main

In bar, the final instruction emitted will be the call to foo, as such,
the return address will be the subsequent instruction (which the JIT
emits as int3 on x86). This will end up lying outside the jited_len of
the program, thus, when unwinding, we will fail to discover the return
address as belonging to any program and end up in a panic due to the
unreliable stack unwinding of BPF programs that we never expect.

To remedy this case, make bpf_prog_ksym_find treat IP == ksym.end as
part of the BPF program, so that is_bpf_text_address returns true when
such a case occurs, and we are able to unwind reliably when the final
instruction ends up being a call instruction.

Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230912233214.1518551-12-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
bpf: Adjust insufficient default bpf_jit_limit 2023-04-05T09:23:35+00:00 Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net 2023-03-20T14:37:25+00:00 a4bbab27c4bf69486f5846d44134eb31c37e9b22 [ Upstream commit 10ec8ca8ec1a2f04c4ed90897225231c58c124a7 ] We've seen recent AWS EKS (Kubernetes) user reports like the following: After upgrading EKS nodes from v20230203 to v20230217 on our 1.24 EKS clusters after a few days a number of the nodes have containers stuck in ContainerCreating state or liveness/readiness probes reporting the following error: Readiness probe errored: rpc error: code = Unknown desc = failed to exec in container: failed to start exec "4a11039f730203ffc003b7[...]": OCI runtime exec failed: exec failed: unable to start container process: unable to init seccomp: error loading seccomp filter into kernel: error loading seccomp filter: errno 524: unknown However, we had not been seeing this issue on previous AMIs and it only started to occur on v20230217 (following the upgrade from kernel 5.4 to 5.10) with no other changes to the underlying cluster or workloads. We tried the suggestions from that issue (sysctl net.core.bpf_jit_limit=452534528) which helped to immediately allow containers to be created and probes to execute but after approximately a day the issue returned and the value returned by cat /proc/vmallocinfo | grep bpf_jit | awk '{s+=$2} END {print s}' was steadily increasing. I tested bpf tree to observe bpf_jit_charge_modmem, bpf_jit_uncharge_modmem their sizes passed in as well as bpf_jit_current under tcpdump BPF filter, seccomp BPF and native (e)BPF programs, and the behavior all looks sane and expected, that is nothing "leaking" from an upstream perspective. The bpf_jit_limit knob was originally added in order to avoid a situation where unprivileged applications loading BPF programs (e.g. seccomp BPF policies) consuming all the module memory space via BPF JIT such that loading of kernel modules would be prevented. The default limit was defined back in 2018 and while good enough back then, we are generally seeing far more BPF consumers today. Adjust the limit for the BPF JIT pool from originally 1/4 to now 1/2 of the module memory space to better reflect today's needs and avoid more users running into potentially hard to debug issues. Fixes: fdadd04931c2 ("bpf: fix bpf_jit_limit knob for PAGE_SIZE >= 64K") Reported-by: Stephen Haynes <sh@synk.net> Reported-by: Lefteris Alexakis <lefteris.alexakis@kpn.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Link: https://github.com/awslabs/amazon-eks-ami/issues/1179 Link: https://github.com/awslabs/amazon-eks-ami/issues/1219 Reviewed-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230320143725.8394-1-daniel@iogearbox.net Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> 
[ Upstream commit 10ec8ca8ec1a2f04c4ed90897225231c58c124a7 ]

We've seen recent AWS EKS (Kubernetes) user reports like the following:

  After upgrading EKS nodes from v20230203 to v20230217 on our 1.24 EKS
  clusters after a few days a number of the nodes have containers stuck
  in ContainerCreating state or liveness/readiness probes reporting the
  following error:

    Readiness probe errored: rpc error: code = Unknown desc = failed to
    exec in container: failed to start exec "4a11039f730203ffc003b7[...]":
    OCI runtime exec failed: exec failed: unable to start container process:
    unable to init seccomp: error loading seccomp filter into kernel:
    error loading seccomp filter: errno 524: unknown

  However, we had not been seeing this issue on previous AMIs and it only
  started to occur on v20230217 (following the upgrade from kernel 5.4 to
  5.10) with no other changes to the underlying cluster or workloads.

  We tried the suggestions from that issue (sysctl net.core.bpf_jit_limit=452534528)
  which helped to immediately allow containers to be created and probes to
  execute but after approximately a day the issue returned and the value
  returned by cat /proc/vmallocinfo | grep bpf_jit | awk '{s+=$2} END {print s}'
  was steadily increasing.

I tested bpf tree to observe bpf_jit_charge_modmem, bpf_jit_uncharge_modmem
their sizes passed in as well as bpf_jit_current under tcpdump BPF filter,
seccomp BPF and native (e)BPF programs, and the behavior all looks sane
and expected, that is nothing "leaking" from an upstream perspective.

The bpf_jit_limit knob was originally added in order to avoid a situation
where unprivileged applications loading BPF programs (e.g. seccomp BPF
policies) consuming all the module memory space via BPF JIT such that loading
of kernel modules would be prevented. The default limit was defined back in
2018 and while good enough back then, we are generally seeing far more BPF
consumers today.

Adjust the limit for the BPF JIT pool from originally 1/4 to now 1/2 of the
module memory space to better reflect today's needs and avoid more users
running into potentially hard to debug issues.

Fixes: fdadd04931c2 ("bpf: fix bpf_jit_limit knob for PAGE_SIZE >= 64K")
Reported-by: Stephen Haynes <sh@synk.net>
Reported-by: Lefteris Alexakis <lefteris.alexakis@kpn.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://github.com/awslabs/amazon-eks-ami/issues/1179
Link: https://github.com/awslabs/amazon-eks-ami/issues/1219
Reviewed-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230320143725.8394-1-daniel@iogearbox.net
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
bpf: add missing header file include 2023-02-25T10:55:05+00:00 Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org 2023-02-22T17:52:32+00:00 12e3119a87627741bd3871c895ce198f21529eb3 commit f3dd0c53370e70c0f9b7e931bbec12916f3bb8cc upstream. Commit 74e19ef0ff80 ("uaccess: Add speculation barrier to copy_from_user()") built fine on x86-64 and arm64, and that's the extent of my local build testing. It turns out those got the <linux/nospec.h> include incidentally through other header files (<linux/kvm_host.h> in particular), but that was not true of other architectures, resulting in build errors kernel/bpf/core.c: In function ‘___bpf_prog_run’: kernel/bpf/core.c:1913:3: error: implicit declaration of function ‘barrier_nospec’ so just make sure to explicitly include the proper <linux/nospec.h> header file to make everybody see it. Fixes: 74e19ef0ff80 ("uaccess: Add speculation barrier to copy_from_user()") Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> Reported-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Reported-by: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@loongson.cn> Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Tested-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> 
commit f3dd0c53370e70c0f9b7e931bbec12916f3bb8cc upstream.

Commit 74e19ef0ff80 ("uaccess: Add speculation barrier to
copy_from_user()") built fine on x86-64 and arm64, and that's the extent
of my local build testing.

It turns out those got the <linux/nospec.h> include incidentally through
other header files (<linux/kvm_host.h> in particular), but that was not
true of other architectures, resulting in build errors

  kernel/bpf/core.c: In function ‘___bpf_prog_run’:
  kernel/bpf/core.c:1913:3: error: implicit declaration of function ‘barrier_nospec’

so just make sure to explicitly include the proper <linux/nospec.h>
header file to make everybody see it.

Fixes: 74e19ef0ff80 ("uaccess: Add speculation barrier to copy_from_user()")
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Reported-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reported-by: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@loongson.cn>
Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Tested-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
uaccess: Add speculation barrier to copy_from_user() 2023-02-25T10:55:03+00:00 Dave Hansen dave.hansen@linux.intel.com 2023-02-21T20:30:15+00:00 3b6ce54cfa2c04f0636fd0c985913af8703b408d commit 74e19ef0ff8061ef55957c3abd71614ef0f42f47 upstream. The results of "access_ok()" can be mis-speculated. The result is that you can end speculatively: if (access_ok(from, size)) // Right here even for bad from/size combinations. On first glance, it would be ideal to just add a speculation barrier to "access_ok()" so that its results can never be mis-speculated. But there are lots of system calls just doing access_ok() via "copy_to_user()" and friends (example: fstat() and friends). Those are generally not problematic because they do not _consume_ data from userspace other than the pointer. They are also very quick and common system calls that should not be needlessly slowed down. "copy_from_user()" on the other hand uses a user-controller pointer and is frequently followed up with code that might affect caches. Take something like this: if (!copy_from_user(&kernelvar, uptr, size)) do_something_with(kernelvar); If userspace passes in an evil 'uptr' that *actually* points to a kernel addresses, and then do_something_with() has cache (or other) side-effects, it could allow userspace to infer kernel data values. Add a barrier to the common copy_from_user() code to prevent mis-speculated values which happen after the copy. Also add a stub for architectures that do not define barrier_nospec(). This makes the macro usable in generic code. Since the barrier is now usable in generic code, the x86 #ifdef in the BPF code can also go away. Reported-by: Jordy Zomer <jordyzomer@google.com> Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> # BPF bits Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> 
commit 74e19ef0ff8061ef55957c3abd71614ef0f42f47 upstream.

The results of "access_ok()" can be mis-speculated.  The result is that
you can end speculatively:

	if (access_ok(from, size))
		// Right here

even for bad from/size combinations.  On first glance, it would be ideal
to just add a speculation barrier to "access_ok()" so that its results
can never be mis-speculated.

But there are lots of system calls just doing access_ok() via
"copy_to_user()" and friends (example: fstat() and friends).  Those are
generally not problematic because they do not _consume_ data from
userspace other than the pointer.  They are also very quick and common
system calls that should not be needlessly slowed down.

"copy_from_user()" on the other hand uses a user-controller pointer and
is frequently followed up with code that might affect caches.  Take
something like this:

	if (!copy_from_user(&kernelvar, uptr, size))
		do_something_with(kernelvar);

If userspace passes in an evil 'uptr' that *actually* points to a kernel
addresses, and then do_something_with() has cache (or other)
side-effects, it could allow userspace to infer kernel data values.

Add a barrier to the common copy_from_user() code to prevent
mis-speculated values which happen after the copy.

Also add a stub for architectures that do not define barrier_nospec().
This makes the macro usable in generic code.

Since the barrier is now usable in generic code, the x86 #ifdef in the
BPF code can also go away.

Reported-by: Jordy Zomer <jordyzomer@google.com>
Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linuxfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>   # BPF bits
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
bpf: Make sure mac_header was set before using it 2022-07-29T15:19:23+00:00 Eric Dumazet edumazet@google.com 2022-07-07T12:39:00+00:00 0c722a32f29abc4231e928a1d15b112c4c084934 commit 0326195f523a549e0a9d7fd44c70b26fd7265090 upstream. Classic BPF has a way to load bytes starting from the mac header. Some skbs do not have a mac header, and skb_mac_header() in this case is returning a pointer that 65535 bytes after skb->head. Existing range check in bpf_internal_load_pointer_neg_helper() was properly kicking and no illegal access was happening. New sanity check in skb_mac_header() is firing, so we need to avoid it. WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 28990 at include/linux/skbuff.h:2785 skb_mac_header include/linux/skbuff.h:2785 [inline] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 28990 at include/linux/skbuff.h:2785 bpf_internal_load_pointer_neg_helper+0x1b1/0x1c0 kernel/bpf/core.c:74 Modules linked in: CPU: 1 PID: 28990 Comm: syz-executor.0 Not tainted 5.19.0-rc4-syzkaller-00865-g4874fb9484be #0 Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 06/29/2022 RIP: 0010:skb_mac_header include/linux/skbuff.h:2785 [inline] RIP: 0010:bpf_internal_load_pointer_neg_helper+0x1b1/0x1c0 kernel/bpf/core.c:74 Code: ff ff 45 31 f6 e9 5a ff ff ff e8 aa 27 40 00 e9 3b ff ff ff e8 90 27 40 00 e9 df fe ff ff e8 86 27 40 00 eb 9e e8 2f 2c f3 ff <0f> 0b eb b1 e8 96 27 40 00 e9 79 fe ff ff 90 41 57 41 56 41 55 41 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000309f668 EFLAGS: 00010216 RAX: 0000000000000118 RBX: ffffffffffeff00c RCX: ffffc9000e417000 RDX: 0000000000040000 RSI: ffffffff81873f21 RDI: 0000000000000003 RBP: ffff8880842878c0 R08: 0000000000000003 R09: 000000000000ffff R10: 000000000000ffff R11: 0000000000000001 R12: 0000000000000004 R13: ffff88803ac56c00 R14: 000000000000ffff R15: dffffc0000000000 FS: 00007f5c88a16700(0000) GS:ffff8880b9b00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007fdaa9f6c058 CR3: 000000003a82c000 CR4: 00000000003506e0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ____bpf_skb_load_helper_32 net/core/filter.c:276 [inline] bpf_skb_load_helper_32+0x191/0x220 net/core/filter.c:264 Fixes: f9aefd6b2aa3 ("net: warn if mac header was not set") Reported-by: syzbot <syzkaller@googlegroups.com> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220707123900.945305-1-edumazet@google.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> 
commit 0326195f523a549e0a9d7fd44c70b26fd7265090 upstream.

Classic BPF has a way to load bytes starting from the mac header.

Some skbs do not have a mac header, and skb_mac_header()
in this case is returning a pointer that 65535 bytes after
skb->head.

Existing range check in bpf_internal_load_pointer_neg_helper()
was properly kicking and no illegal access was happening.

New sanity check in skb_mac_header() is firing, so we need
to avoid it.

WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 28990 at include/linux/skbuff.h:2785 skb_mac_header include/linux/skbuff.h:2785 [inline]
WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 28990 at include/linux/skbuff.h:2785 bpf_internal_load_pointer_neg_helper+0x1b1/0x1c0 kernel/bpf/core.c:74
Modules linked in:
CPU: 1 PID: 28990 Comm: syz-executor.0 Not tainted 5.19.0-rc4-syzkaller-00865-g4874fb9484be #0
Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 06/29/2022
RIP: 0010:skb_mac_header include/linux/skbuff.h:2785 [inline]
RIP: 0010:bpf_internal_load_pointer_neg_helper+0x1b1/0x1c0 kernel/bpf/core.c:74
Code: ff ff 45 31 f6 e9 5a ff ff ff e8 aa 27 40 00 e9 3b ff ff ff e8 90 27 40 00 e9 df fe ff ff e8 86 27 40 00 eb 9e e8 2f 2c f3 ff <0f> 0b eb b1 e8 96 27 40 00 e9 79 fe ff ff 90 41 57 41 56 41 55 41
RSP: 0018:ffffc9000309f668 EFLAGS: 00010216
RAX: 0000000000000118 RBX: ffffffffffeff00c RCX: ffffc9000e417000
RDX: 0000000000040000 RSI: ffffffff81873f21 RDI: 0000000000000003
RBP: ffff8880842878c0 R08: 0000000000000003 R09: 000000000000ffff
R10: 000000000000ffff R11: 0000000000000001 R12: 0000000000000004
R13: ffff88803ac56c00 R14: 000000000000ffff R15: dffffc0000000000
FS: 00007f5c88a16700(0000) GS:ffff8880b9b00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
CR2: 00007fdaa9f6c058 CR3: 000000003a82c000 CR4: 00000000003506e0
DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
Call Trace:
<TASK>
____bpf_skb_load_helper_32 net/core/filter.c:276 [inline]
bpf_skb_load_helper_32+0x191/0x220 net/core/filter.c:264

Fixes: f9aefd6b2aa3 ("net: warn if mac header was not set")
Reported-by: syzbot <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220707123900.945305-1-edumazet@google.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
bpf: Fix probe read error in ___bpf_prog_run() 2022-06-14T16:32:35+00:00 Menglong Dong imagedong@tencent.com 2022-05-24T02:12:27+00:00 8f49e1694cbc29e76d5028267c1978cc2630e494 [ Upstream commit caff1fa4118cec4dfd4336521ebd22a6408a1e3e ] I think there is something wrong with BPF_PROBE_MEM in ___bpf_prog_run() in big-endian machine. Let's make a test and see what will happen if we want to load a 'u16' with BPF_PROBE_MEM. Let's make the src value '0x0001', the value of dest register will become 0x0001000000000000, as the value will be loaded to the first 2 byte of DST with following code: bpf_probe_read_kernel(&DST, SIZE, (const void *)(long) (SRC + insn->off)); Obviously, the value in DST is not correct. In fact, we can compare BPF_PROBE_MEM with LDX_MEM_H: DST = *(SIZE *)(unsigned long) (SRC + insn->off); If the memory load is done by LDX_MEM_H, the value in DST will be 0x1 now. And I think this error results in the test case 'test_bpf_sk_storage_map' failing: test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:bpf_iter_bpf_sk_storage_map__open_and_load 0 nsec test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:socket 0 nsec test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:map_update 0 nsec test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:socket 0 nsec test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:map_update 0 nsec test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:socket 0 nsec test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:map_update 0 nsec test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:attach_iter 0 nsec test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:create_iter 0 nsec test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:read 0 nsec test_bpf_sk_storage_map:FAIL:ipv6_sk_count got 0 expected 3 $10/26 bpf_iter/bpf_sk_storage_map:FAIL The code of the test case is simply, it will load sk->sk_family to the register with BPF_PROBE_MEM and check if it is AF_INET6. With this patch, now the test case 'bpf_iter' can pass: $10 bpf_iter:OK Fixes: 2a02759ef5f8 ("bpf: Add support for BTF pointers to interpreter") Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <imagedong@tencent.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Reviewed-by: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@tencent.com> Reviewed-by: Hao Peng <flyingpeng@tencent.com> Cc: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220524021228.533216-1-imagedong@tencent.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> 
[ Upstream commit caff1fa4118cec4dfd4336521ebd22a6408a1e3e ]

I think there is something wrong with BPF_PROBE_MEM in ___bpf_prog_run()
in big-endian machine. Let's make a test and see what will happen if we
want to load a 'u16' with BPF_PROBE_MEM.

Let's make the src value '0x0001', the value of dest register will become
0x0001000000000000, as the value will be loaded to the first 2 byte of
DST with following code:

  bpf_probe_read_kernel(&DST, SIZE, (const void *)(long) (SRC + insn->off));

Obviously, the value in DST is not correct. In fact, we can compare
BPF_PROBE_MEM with LDX_MEM_H:

  DST = *(SIZE *)(unsigned long) (SRC + insn->off);

If the memory load is done by LDX_MEM_H, the value in DST will be 0x1 now.

And I think this error results in the test case 'test_bpf_sk_storage_map'
failing:

  test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:bpf_iter_bpf_sk_storage_map__open_and_load 0 nsec
  test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:socket 0 nsec
  test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:map_update 0 nsec
  test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:socket 0 nsec
  test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:map_update 0 nsec
  test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:socket 0 nsec
  test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:map_update 0 nsec
  test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:attach_iter 0 nsec
  test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:create_iter 0 nsec
  test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:read 0 nsec
  test_bpf_sk_storage_map:FAIL:ipv6_sk_count got 0 expected 3
  $10/26 bpf_iter/bpf_sk_storage_map:FAIL

The code of the test case is simply, it will load sk->sk_family to the
register with BPF_PROBE_MEM and check if it is AF_INET6. With this patch,
now the test case 'bpf_iter' can pass:

  $10  bpf_iter:OK

Fixes: 2a02759ef5f8 ("bpf: Add support for BTF pointers to interpreter")
Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <imagedong@tencent.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Reviewed-by: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@tencent.com>
Reviewed-by: Hao Peng <flyingpeng@tencent.com>
Cc: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220524021228.533216-1-imagedong@tencent.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
bpf: Prevent increasing bpf_jit_limit above max 2021-11-18T13:03:42+00:00 Lorenz Bauer lmb@cloudflare.com 2021-10-14T14:25:53+00:00 b92ac0a9ca8f27076c2096cae0896b94aaa4a6ac [ Upstream commit fadb7ff1a6c2c565af56b4aacdd086b067eed440 ] Restrict bpf_jit_limit to the maximum supported by the arch's JIT. Signed-off-by: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211014142554.53120-4-lmb@cloudflare.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> 
[ Upstream commit fadb7ff1a6c2c565af56b4aacdd086b067eed440 ]

Restrict bpf_jit_limit to the maximum supported by the arch's JIT.

Signed-off-by: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211014142554.53120-4-lmb@cloudflare.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
bpf: Fix potential race in tail call compatibility check 2021-11-02T18:48:21+00:00 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen toke@redhat.com 2021-10-26T11:00:19+00:00 dd2260ec643d309d8c58ceac3aa77f80db765488 commit 54713c85f536048e685258f880bf298a74c3620d upstream. Lorenzo noticed that the code testing for program type compatibility of tail call maps is potentially racy in that two threads could encounter a map with an unset type simultaneously and both return true even though they are inserting incompatible programs. The race window is quite small, but artificially enlarging it by adding a usleep_range() inside the check in bpf_prog_array_compatible() makes it trivial to trigger from userspace with a program that does, essentially: map_fd = bpf_create_map(BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY, 4, 4, 2, 0); pid = fork(); if (pid) { key = 0; value = xdp_fd; } else { key = 1; value = tc_fd; } err = bpf_map_update_elem(map_fd, &key, &value, 0); While the race window is small, it has potentially serious ramifications in that triggering it would allow a BPF program to tail call to a program of a different type. So let's get rid of it by protecting the update with a spinlock. The commit in the Fixes tag is the last commit that touches the code in question. v2: - Use a spinlock instead of an atomic variable and cmpxchg() (Alexei) v3: - Put lock and the members it protects into an embedded 'owner' struct (Daniel) Fixes: 3324b584b6f6 ("ebpf: misc core cleanup") Reported-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211026110019.363464-1-toke@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> 
commit 54713c85f536048e685258f880bf298a74c3620d upstream.

Lorenzo noticed that the code testing for program type compatibility of
tail call maps is potentially racy in that two threads could encounter a
map with an unset type simultaneously and both return true even though they
are inserting incompatible programs.

The race window is quite small, but artificially enlarging it by adding a
usleep_range() inside the check in bpf_prog_array_compatible() makes it
trivial to trigger from userspace with a program that does, essentially:

        map_fd = bpf_create_map(BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY, 4, 4, 2, 0);
        pid = fork();
        if (pid) {
                key = 0;
                value = xdp_fd;
        } else {
                key = 1;
                value = tc_fd;
        }
        err = bpf_map_update_elem(map_fd, &key, &value, 0);

While the race window is small, it has potentially serious ramifications in
that triggering it would allow a BPF program to tail call to a program of a
different type. So let's get rid of it by protecting the update with a
spinlock. The commit in the Fixes tag is the last commit that touches the
code in question.

v2:
- Use a spinlock instead of an atomic variable and cmpxchg() (Alexei)
v3:
- Put lock and the members it protects into an embedded 'owner' struct (Daniel)

Fixes: 3324b584b6f6 ("ebpf: misc core cleanup")
Reported-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211026110019.363464-1-toke@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
bpf: Exempt CAP_BPF from checks against bpf_jit_limit 2021-10-06T13:55:55+00:00 Lorenz Bauer lmb@cloudflare.com 2021-09-22T11:11:52+00:00 59efda5073abb4fff2ce8c90ca9c2d25882e84a4 [ Upstream commit 8a98ae12fbefdb583a7696de719a1d57e5e940a2 ] When introducing CAP_BPF, bpf_jit_charge_modmem() was not changed to treat programs with CAP_BPF as privileged for the purpose of JIT memory allocation. This means that a program without CAP_BPF can block a program with CAP_BPF from loading a program. Fix this by checking bpf_capable() in bpf_jit_charge_modmem(). Fixes: 2c78ee898d8f ("bpf: Implement CAP_BPF") Signed-off-by: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210922111153.19843-1-lmb@cloudflare.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> 
[ Upstream commit 8a98ae12fbefdb583a7696de719a1d57e5e940a2 ]

When introducing CAP_BPF, bpf_jit_charge_modmem() was not changed to treat
programs with CAP_BPF as privileged for the purpose of JIT memory allocation.
This means that a program without CAP_BPF can block a program with CAP_BPF
from loading a program.

Fix this by checking bpf_capable() in bpf_jit_charge_modmem().

Fixes: 2c78ee898d8f ("bpf: Implement CAP_BPF")
Signed-off-by: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210922111153.19843-1-lmb@cloudflare.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>