From 40950343932879247861ae152dcb55e4555afdff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Colin Ian King Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:20:54 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] bpf: fix spelling mistake: "obusing" -> "abusing" Trivial fix to spelling mistake in error message text. Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index b414d6b2d470..96ab165c873c 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -4472,7 +4472,7 @@ static int fixup_bpf_calls(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) */ map_ptr = env->insn_aux_data[i + delta].map_ptr; if (map_ptr == BPF_MAP_PTR_POISON) { - verbose(env, "tail_call obusing map_ptr\n"); + verbose(env, "tail_call abusing map_ptr\n"); return -EINVAL; } if (!map_ptr->unpriv_array) From 7891a87efc7116590eaba57acc3c422487802c6f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Borkmann Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 20:04:37 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2/3] bpf: arsh is not supported in 32 bit alu thus reject it The following snippet was throwing an 'unknown opcode cc' warning in BPF interpreter: 0: (18) r0 = 0x0 2: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = r0 3: (cc) (u32) r0 s>>= (u32) r0 4: (95) exit Although a number of JITs do support BPF_ALU | BPF_ARSH | BPF_{K,X} generation, not all of them do and interpreter does neither. We can leave existing ones and implement it later in bpf-next for the remaining ones, but reject this properly in verifier for the time being. Fixes: 17a5267067f3 ("bpf: verifier (add verifier core)") Reported-by: syzbot+93c4904c5c70348a6890@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 5 +++ tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 96ab165c873c..20eb04fd155e 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -2493,6 +2493,11 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn) return -EINVAL; } + if (opcode == BPF_ARSH && BPF_CLASS(insn->code) != BPF_ALU64) { + verbose(env, "BPF_ARSH not supported for 32 bit ALU\n"); + return -EINVAL; + } + if ((opcode == BPF_LSH || opcode == BPF_RSH || opcode == BPF_ARSH) && BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_K) { int size = BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64 ? 64 : 32; diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c index b51017404c62..6bafa5456568 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c @@ -272,6 +272,46 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .errstr = "invalid bpf_ld_imm64 insn", .result = REJECT, }, + { + "arsh32 on imm", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1), + BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_0, 5), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = REJECT, + .errstr = "BPF_ARSH not supported for 32 bit ALU", + }, + { + "arsh32 on reg", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 5), + BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = REJECT, + .errstr = "BPF_ARSH not supported for 32 bit ALU", + }, + { + "arsh64 on imm", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_0, 5), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { + "arsh64 on reg", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 5), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, { "no bpf_exit", .insns = { From bbeb6e4323dad9b5e0ee9f60c223dd532e2403b1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Borkmann Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 23:25:05 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 3/3] bpf, array: fix overflow in max_entries and undefined behavior in index_mask syzkaller tried to alloc a map with 0xfffffffd entries out of a userns, and thus unprivileged. With the recently added logic in b2157399cc98 ("bpf: prevent out-of-bounds speculation") we round this up to the next power of two value for max_entries for unprivileged such that we can apply proper masking into potentially zeroed out map slots. However, this will generate an index_mask of 0xffffffff, and therefore a + 1 will let this overflow into new max_entries of 0. This will pass allocation, etc, and later on map access we still enforce on the original attr->max_entries value which was 0xfffffffd, therefore triggering GPF all over the place. Thus bail out on overflow in such case. Moreover, on 32 bit archs roundup_pow_of_two() can also not be used, since fls_long(max_entries - 1) can result in 32 and 1UL << 32 in 32 bit space is undefined. Therefore, do this by hand in a 64 bit variable. This fixes all the issues triggered by syzkaller's reproducers. Fixes: b2157399cc98 ("bpf: prevent out-of-bounds speculation") Reported-by: syzbot+b0efb8e572d01bce1ae0@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Reported-by: syzbot+6c15e9744f75f2364773@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Reported-by: syzbot+d2f5524fb46fd3b312ee@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Reported-by: syzbot+61d23c95395cc90dbc2b@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Reported-by: syzbot+0d363c942452cca68c01@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov --- kernel/bpf/arraymap.c | 18 +++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c b/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c index aaa319848e7d..ab94d304a634 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ static struct bpf_map *array_map_alloc(union bpf_attr *attr) u32 elem_size, index_mask, max_entries; bool unpriv = !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN); struct bpf_array *array; - u64 array_size; + u64 array_size, mask64; /* check sanity of attributes */ if (attr->max_entries == 0 || attr->key_size != 4 || @@ -74,13 +74,25 @@ static struct bpf_map *array_map_alloc(union bpf_attr *attr) elem_size = round_up(attr->value_size, 8); max_entries = attr->max_entries; - index_mask = roundup_pow_of_two(max_entries) - 1; - if (unpriv) + /* On 32 bit archs roundup_pow_of_two() with max_entries that has + * upper most bit set in u32 space is undefined behavior due to + * resulting 1U << 32, so do it manually here in u64 space. + */ + mask64 = fls_long(max_entries - 1); + mask64 = 1ULL << mask64; + mask64 -= 1; + + index_mask = mask64; + if (unpriv) { /* round up array size to nearest power of 2, * since cpu will speculate within index_mask limits */ max_entries = index_mask + 1; + /* Check for overflows. */ + if (max_entries < attr->max_entries) + return ERR_PTR(-E2BIG); + } array_size = sizeof(*array); if (percpu)