linux.git/kernel/bpf, branch v5.16.1

bpf: Fix out of bounds access from invalid *_or_null type verification

2022-01-16T08:11:11+00:00

[ no upstream commit given implicitly fixed through the larger refactoring
  in c25b2ae136039ffa820c26138ed4a5e5f3ab3841 ]

While auditing some other code, I noticed missing checks inside the pointer
arithmetic simulation, more specifically, adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(). Several
*_OR_NULL types are not rejected whereas they are _required_ to be rejected
given the expectation is that they get promoted into a 'real' pointer type
for the success case, that is, after an explicit != NULL check.

One case which stands out and is accessible from unprivileged (iff enabled
given disabled by default) is BPF ring buffer. From crafting a PoC, the NULL
check can be bypassed through an offset, and its id marking will then lead
to promotion of mem_or_null to a mem type.

bpf_ringbuf_reserve() helper can trigger this case through passing of reserved
flags, for example.

  func#0 @0
  0: R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0
  0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0
  1: R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
  1: (18) r1 = 0x0
  3: R1_w=map_ptr(id=0,off=0,ks=0,vs=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
  3: (b7) r2 = 8
  4: R1_w=map_ptr(id=0,off=0,ks=0,vs=0,imm=0) R2_w=invP8 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
  4: (b7) r3 = 0
  5: R1_w=map_ptr(id=0,off=0,ks=0,vs=0,imm=0) R2_w=invP8 R3_w=invP0 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
  5: (85) call bpf_ringbuf_reserve#131
  6: R0_w=mem_or_null(id=2,ref_obj_id=2,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm refs=2
  6: (bf) r6 = r0
  7: R0_w=mem_or_null(id=2,ref_obj_id=2,off=0,imm=0) R6_w=mem_or_null(id=2,ref_obj_id=2,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm refs=2
  7: (07) r0 += 1
  8: R0_w=mem_or_null(id=2,ref_obj_id=2,off=1,imm=0) R6_w=mem_or_null(id=2,ref_obj_id=2,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm refs=2
  8: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+4
   R0_w=mem(id=0,ref_obj_id=0,off=0,imm=0) R6_w=mem(id=0,ref_obj_id=2,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm refs=2
  9: R0_w=mem(id=0,ref_obj_id=0,off=0,imm=0) R6_w=mem(id=0,ref_obj_id=2,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm refs=2
  9: (62) *(u32 *)(r6 +0) = 0
   R0_w=mem(id=0,ref_obj_id=0,off=0,imm=0) R6_w=mem(id=0,ref_obj_id=2,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm refs=2
  10: R0_w=mem(id=0,ref_obj_id=0,off=0,imm=0) R6_w=mem(id=0,ref_obj_id=2,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm refs=2
  10: (bf) r1 = r6
  11: R0_w=mem(id=0,ref_obj_id=0,off=0,imm=0) R1_w=mem(id=0,ref_obj_id=2,off=0,imm=0) R6_w=mem(id=0,ref_obj_id=2,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm refs=2
  11: (b7) r2 = 0
  12: R0_w=mem(id=0,ref_obj_id=0,off=0,imm=0) R1_w=mem(id=0,ref_obj_id=2,off=0,imm=0) R2_w=invP0 R6_w=mem(id=0,ref_obj_id=2,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm refs=2
  12: (85) call bpf_ringbuf_submit#132
  13: R6=invP(id=0) R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmmmmmm
  13: (b7) r0 = 0
  14: R0_w=invP0 R6=invP(id=0) R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmmmmmm
  14: (95) exit

  from 8 to 13: safe
  processed 15 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 1 peak_states 1 mark_read 0
  OK

All three commits, that is b121b341e598 ("bpf: Add PTR_TO_BTF_ID_OR_NULL support"),
457f44363a88 ("bpf: Implement BPF ring buffer and verifier support for it"), and the
afbf21dce668 ("bpf: Support readonly/readwrite buffers in verifier") suffer the same
cause and their *_OR_NULL type pendants must be rejected in adjust_ptr_min_max_vals().

Make the test more robust by reusing reg_type_may_be_null() helper such that we catch
all *_OR_NULL types we have today and in future.

Note that pointer arithmetic on PTR_TO_BTF_ID, PTR_TO_RDONLY_BUF, and PTR_TO_RDWR_BUF
is generally allowed.

Fixes: b121b341e598 ("bpf: Add PTR_TO_BTF_ID_OR_NULL support")
Fixes: 457f44363a88 ("bpf: Implement BPF ring buffer and verifier support for it")
Fixes: afbf21dce668 ("bpf: Support readonly/readwrite buffers in verifier")
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: Make 32->64 bounds propagation slightly more robust

2021-12-16T18:45:56+00:00

Make the bounds propagation in __reg_assign_32_into_64() slightly more
robust and readable by aligning it similarly as we did back in the
__reg_combine_64_into_32() counterpart. Meaning, only propagate or
pessimize them as a smin/smax pair.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Reviewed-by: John Fastabend 
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf: Fix signed bounds propagation after mov32

2021-12-16T18:45:46+00:00

For the case where both s32_{min,max}_value bounds are positive, the
__reg_assign_32_into_64() directly propagates them to their 64 bit
counterparts, otherwise it pessimises them into [0,u32_max] universe and
tries to refine them later on by learning through the tnum as per comment
in mentioned function. However, that does not always happen, for example,
in mov32 operation we call zext_32_to_64(dst_reg) which invokes the
__reg_assign_32_into_64() as is without subsequent bounds update as
elsewhere thus no refinement based on tnum takes place.

Thus, not calling into the __update_reg_bounds() / __reg_deduce_bounds() /
__reg_bound_offset() triplet as we do, for example, in case of ALU ops via
adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(), will lead to more pessimistic bounds when
dumping the full register state:

Before fix:

  0: (b4) w0 = -1
  1: R0_w=invP4294967295
     (id=0,imm=ffffffff,
      smin_value=4294967295,smax_value=4294967295,
      umin_value=4294967295,umax_value=4294967295,
      var_off=(0xffffffff; 0x0),
      s32_min_value=-1,s32_max_value=-1,
      u32_min_value=-1,u32_max_value=-1)

  1: (bc) w0 = w0
  2: R0_w=invP4294967295
     (id=0,imm=ffffffff,
      smin_value=0,smax_value=4294967295,
      umin_value=4294967295,umax_value=4294967295,
      var_off=(0xffffffff; 0x0),
      s32_min_value=-1,s32_max_value=-1,
      u32_min_value=-1,u32_max_value=-1)

Technically, the smin_value=0 and smax_value=4294967295 bounds are not
incorrect, but given the register is still a constant, they break assumptions
about const scalars that smin_value == smax_value and umin_value == umax_value.

After fix:

  0: (b4) w0 = -1
  1: R0_w=invP4294967295
     (id=0,imm=ffffffff,
      smin_value=4294967295,smax_value=4294967295,
      umin_value=4294967295,umax_value=4294967295,
      var_off=(0xffffffff; 0x0),
      s32_min_value=-1,s32_max_value=-1,
      u32_min_value=-1,u32_max_value=-1)

  1: (bc) w0 = w0
  2: R0_w=invP4294967295
     (id=0,imm=ffffffff,
      smin_value=4294967295,smax_value=4294967295,
      umin_value=4294967295,umax_value=4294967295,
      var_off=(0xffffffff; 0x0),
      s32_min_value=-1,s32_max_value=-1,
      u32_min_value=-1,u32_max_value=-1)

Without the smin_value == smax_value and umin_value == umax_value invariant
being intact for const scalars, it is possible to leak out kernel pointers
from unprivileged user space if the latter is enabled. For example, when such
registers are involved in pointer arithmtics, then adjust_ptr_min_max_vals()
will taint the destination register into an unknown scalar, and the latter
can be exported and stored e.g. into a BPF map value.

Fixes: 3f50f132d840 ("bpf: Verifier, do explicit ALU32 bounds tracking")
Reported-by: Kuee K1r0a 
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Reviewed-by: John Fastabend 
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf: Fix kernel address leakage in atomic cmpxchg's r0 aux reg

2021-12-15T03:33:06+00:00

The implementation of BPF_CMPXCHG on a high level has the following parameters:

  .-[old-val]                                          .-[new-val]
  BPF_R0 = cmpxchg{32,64}(DST_REG + insn->off, BPF_R0, SRC_REG)
                          `-[mem-loc]          `-[old-val]

Given a BPF insn can only have two registers (dst, src), the R0 is fixed and
used as an auxilliary register for input (old value) as well as output (returning
old value from memory location). While the verifier performs a number of safety
checks, it misses to reject unprivileged programs where R0 contains a pointer as
old value.

Through brute-forcing it takes about ~16sec on my machine to leak a kernel pointer
with BPF_CMPXCHG. The PoC is basically probing for kernel addresses by storing the
guessed address into the map slot as a scalar, and using the map value pointer as
R0 while SRC_REG has a canary value to detect a matching address.

Fix it by checking R0 for pointers, and reject if that's the case for unprivileged
programs.

Fixes: 5ffa25502b5a ("bpf: Add instructions for atomic_[cmp]xchg")
Reported-by: Ryota Shiga (Flatt Security)
Acked-by: Brendan Jackman 
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf: Fix kernel address leakage in atomic fetch

2021-12-15T03:33:06+00:00

The change in commit 37086bfdc737 ("bpf: Propagate stack bounds to registers
in atomics w/ BPF_FETCH") around check_mem_access() handling is buggy since
this would allow for unprivileged users to leak kernel pointers. For example,
an atomic fetch/and with -1 on a stack destination which holds a spilled
pointer will migrate the spilled register type into a scalar, which can then
be exported out of the program (since scalar != pointer) by dumping it into
a map value.

The original implementation of XADD was preventing this situation by using
a double call to check_mem_access() one with BPF_READ and a subsequent one
with BPF_WRITE, in both cases passing -1 as a placeholder value instead of
register as per XADD semantics since it didn't contain a value fetch. The
BPF_READ also included a check in check_stack_read_fixed_off() which rejects
the program if the stack slot is of __is_pointer_value() if dst_regno < 0.
The latter is to distinguish whether we're dealing with a regular stack spill/
fill or some arithmetical operation which is disallowed on non-scalars, see
also 6e7e63cbb023 ("bpf: Forbid XADD on spilled pointers for unprivileged
users") for more context on check_mem_access() and its handling of placeholder
value -1.

One minimally intrusive option to fix the leak is for the BPF_FETCH case to
initially check the BPF_READ case via check_mem_access() with -1 as register,
followed by the actual load case with non-negative load_reg to propagate
stack bounds to registers.

Fixes: 37086bfdc737 ("bpf: Propagate stack bounds to registers in atomics w/ BPF_FETCH")
Reported-by: 
Acked-by: Brendan Jackman 
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf: Fix incorrect state pruning for <8B spill/fill

2021-12-10T17:13:19+00:00

Commit 354e8f1970f8 ("bpf: Support <8-byte scalar spill and refill")
introduced support in the verifier to track <8B spill/fills of scalars.
The backtracking logic for the precision bit was however skipping
spill/fills of less than 8B. That could cause state pruning to consider
two states equivalent when they shouldn't be.

As an example, consider the following bytecode snippet:

  0:  r7 = r1
  1:  call bpf_get_prandom_u32
  2:  r6 = 2
  3:  if r0 == 0 goto pc+1
  4:  r6 = 3
  ...
  8: [state pruning point]
  ...
  /* u32 spill/fill */
  10: *(u32 *)(r10 - 8) = r6
  11: r8 = *(u32 *)(r10 - 8)
  12: r0 = 0
  13: if r8 == 3 goto pc+1
  14: r0 = 1
  15: exit

The verifier first walks the path with R6=3. Given the support for <8B
spill/fills, at instruction 13, it knows the condition is true and skips
instruction 14. At that point, the backtracking logic kicks in but stops
at the fill instruction since it only propagates the precision bit for
8B spill/fill. When the verifier then walks the path with R6=2, it will
consider it safe at instruction 8 because R6 is not marked as needing
precision. Instruction 14 is thus never walked and is then incorrectly
removed as 'dead code'.

It's also possible to lead the verifier to accept e.g. an out-of-bound
memory access instead of causing an incorrect dead code elimination.

This regression was found via Cilium's bpf-next CI where it was causing
a conntrack map update to be silently skipped because the code had been
removed by the verifier.

This commit fixes it by enabling support for <8B spill/fills in the
bactracking logic. In case of a <8B spill/fill, the full 8B stack slot
will be marked as needing precision. Then, in __mark_chain_precision,
any tracked register spilled in a marked slot will itself be marked as
needing precision, regardless of the spill size. This logic makes two
assumptions: (1) only 8B-aligned spill/fill are tracked and (2) spilled
registers are only tracked if the spill and fill sizes are equal. Commit
ef979017b837 ("bpf: selftest: Add verifier tests for <8-byte scalar
spill and refill") covers the first assumption and the next commit in
this patchset covers the second.

Fixes: 354e8f1970f8 ("bpf: Support <8-byte scalar spill and refill")
Signed-off-by: Paul Chaignon 
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf: Fix the off-by-two error in range markings

2021-12-03T20:44:42+00:00

The first commit cited below attempts to fix the off-by-one error that
appeared in some comparisons with an open range. Due to this error,
arithmetically equivalent pieces of code could get different verdicts
from the verifier, for example (pseudocode):

  // 1. Passes the verifier:
  if (data + 8 > data_end)
      return early
  read *(u64 *)data, i.e. [data; data+7]

  // 2. Rejected by the verifier (should still pass):
  if (data + 7 >= data_end)
      return early
  read *(u64 *)data, i.e. [data; data+7]

The attempted fix, however, shifts the range by one in a wrong
direction, so the bug not only remains, but also such piece of code
starts failing in the verifier:

  // 3. Rejected by the verifier, but the check is stricter than in #1.
  if (data + 8 >= data_end)
      return early
  read *(u64 *)data, i.e. [data; data+7]

The change performed by that fix converted an off-by-one bug into
off-by-two. The second commit cited below added the BPF selftests
written to ensure than code chunks like #3 are rejected, however,
they should be accepted.

This commit fixes the off-by-two error by adjusting new_range in the
right direction and fixes the tests by changing the range into the
one that should actually fail.

Fixes: fb2a311a31d3 ("bpf: fix off by one for range markings with L{T, E} patterns")
Fixes: b37242c773b2 ("bpf: add test cases to bpf selftests to cover all access tests")
Signed-off-by: Maxim Mikityanskiy 
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211130181607.593149-1-maximmi@nvidia.com

bpf: Fix bpf_check_mod_kfunc_call for built-in modules

2021-12-02T21:39:46+00:00

When module registering its set is built-in, THIS_MODULE will be NULL,
hence we cannot return early in case owner is NULL.

Fixes: 14f267d95fe4 ("bpf: btf: Introduce helpers for dynamic BTF set registration")
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi 
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko 
Acked-by: Song Liu 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211122144742.477787-3-memxor@gmail.com

bpf: Make CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF depend upon CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL

2021-12-02T21:39:46+00:00

Vinicius Costa Gomes reported [0] that build fails when
CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF is enabled and CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL is disabled.
This leads to btf.c not being compiled, and then no symbol being present
in vmlinux for the declarations in btf.h. Since BTF is not useful
without enabling BPF subsystem, disallow this combination.

However, theoretically disabling both now could still fail, as the
symbol for kfunc_btf_id_list variables is not available. This isn't a
problem as the compiler usually optimizes the whole register/unregister
call, but at lower optimization levels it can fail the build in linking
stage.

Fix that by adding dummy variables so that modules taking address of
them still work, but the whole thing is a noop.

  [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211110205418.332403-1-vinicius.gomes@intel.com

Fixes: 14f267d95fe4 ("bpf: btf: Introduce helpers for dynamic BTF set registration")
Reported-by: Vinicius Costa Gomes 
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi 
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko 
Acked-by: Song Liu 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211122144742.477787-2-memxor@gmail.com

bpf: Fix toctou on read-only map's constant scalar tracking

2021-11-16T04:47:07+00:00

Commit a23740ec43ba ("bpf: Track contents of read-only maps as scalars") is
checking whether maps are read-only both from BPF program side and user space
side, and then, given their content is constant, reading out their data via
map->ops->map_direct_value_addr() which is then subsequently used as known
scalar value for the register, that is, it is marked as __mark_reg_known()
with the read value at verification time. Before a23740ec43ba, the register
content was marked as an unknown scalar so the verifier could not make any
assumptions about the map content.

The current implementation however is prone to a TOCTOU race, meaning, the
value read as known scalar for the register is not guaranteed to be exactly
the same at a later point when the program is executed, and as such, the
prior made assumptions of the verifier with regards to the program will be
invalid which can cause issues such as OOB access, etc.

While the BPF_F_RDONLY_PROG map flag is always fixed and required to be
specified at map creation time, the map->frozen property is initially set to
false for the map given the map value needs to be populated, e.g. for global
data sections. Once complete, the loader "freezes" the map from user space
such that no subsequent updates/deletes are possible anymore. For the rest
of the lifetime of the map, this freeze one-time trigger cannot be undone
anymore after a successful BPF_MAP_FREEZE cmd return. Meaning, any new BPF_*
cmd calls which would update/delete map entries will be rejected with -EPERM
since map_get_sys_perms() removes the FMODE_CAN_WRITE permission. This also
means that pending update/delete map entries must still complete before this
guarantee is given. This corner case is not an issue for loaders since they
create and prepare such program private map in successive steps.

However, a malicious user is able to trigger this TOCTOU race in two different
ways: i) via userfaultfd, and ii) via batched updates. For i) userfaultfd is
used to expand the competition interval, so that map_update_elem() can modify
the contents of the map after map_freeze() and bpf_prog_load() were executed.
This works, because userfaultfd halts the parallel thread which triggered a
map_update_elem() at the time where we copy key/value from the user buffer and
this already passed the FMODE_CAN_WRITE capability test given at that time the
map was not "frozen". Then, the main thread performs the map_freeze() and
bpf_prog_load(), and once that had completed successfully, the other thread
is woken up to complete the pending map_update_elem() which then changes the
map content. For ii) the idea of the batched update is similar, meaning, when
there are a large number of updates to be processed, it can increase the
competition interval between the two. It is therefore possible in practice to
modify the contents of the map after executing map_freeze() and bpf_prog_load().

One way to fix both i) and ii) at the same time is to expand the use of the
map's map->writecnt. The latter was introduced in fc9702273e2e ("bpf: Add mmap()
support for BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARRAY") and further refined in 1f6cb19be2e2 ("bpf:
Prevent re-mmap()'ing BPF map as writable for initially r/o mapping") with
the rationale to make a writable mmap()'ing of a map mutually exclusive with
read-only freezing. The counter indicates writable mmap() mappings and then
prevents/fails the freeze operation. Its semantics can be expanded beyond
just mmap() by generally indicating ongoing write phases. This would essentially
span any parallel regular and batched flavor of update/delete operation and
then also have map_freeze() fail with -EBUSY. For the check_mem_access() in
the verifier we expand upon the bpf_map_is_rdonly() check ensuring that all
last pending writes have completed via bpf_map_write_active() test. Once the
map->frozen is set and bpf_map_write_active() indicates a map->writecnt of 0
only then we are really guaranteed to use the map's data as known constants.
For map->frozen being set and pending writes in process of still being completed
we fall back to marking that register as unknown scalar so we don't end up
making assumptions about it. With this, both TOCTOU reproducers from i) and
ii) are fixed.

Note that the map->writecnt has been converted into a atomic64 in the fix in
order to avoid a double freeze_mutex mutex_{un,}lock() pair when updating
map->writecnt in the various map update/delete BPF_* cmd flavors. Spanning
the freeze_mutex over entire map update/delete operations in syscall side
would not be possible due to then causing everything to be serialized.
Similarly, something like synchronize_rcu() after setting map->frozen to wait
for update/deletes to complete is not possible either since it would also
have to span the user copy which can sleep. On the libbpf side, this won't
break d66562fba1ce ("libbpf: Add BPF object skeleton support") as the
anonymous mmap()-ed "map initialization image" is remapped as a BPF map-backed
mmap()-ed memory where for .rodata it's non-writable.

Fixes: a23740ec43ba ("bpf: Track contents of read-only maps as scalars")
Reported-by: w1tcher.bupt@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko 
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov