bpf: fix mixed signed/unsigned derived min/max value bounds
Edward reported that there's an issue in min/max value bounds tracking when signed and unsigned compares both provide hints on limits when having unknown variables. E.g. a program such as the following should have been rejected: 0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 1: (bf) r2 = r10 2: (07) r2 += -8 3: (18) r1 = 0xffff8a94cda93400 5: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1 6: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+7 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp 7: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = -8 8: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 -16) 9: (b7) r2 = -1 10: (2d) if r1 > r2 goto pc+3 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=0 R2=imm-1,max_value=18446744073709551615,min_align=1 R10=fp 11: (65) if r1 s> 0x1 goto pc+2 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=0,max_value=1 R2=imm-1,max_value=18446744073709551615,min_align=1 R10=fp 12: (0f) r0 += r1 13: (72) *(u8 *)(r0 +0) = 0 R0=map_value_adj(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=1 R1=inv,min_value=0,max_value=1 R2=imm-1,max_value=18446744073709551615,min_align=1 R10=fp 14: (b7) r0 = 0 15: (95) exit What happens is that in the first part ... 8: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 -16) 9: (b7) r2 = -1 10: (2d) if r1 > r2 goto pc+3 ... r1 carries an unsigned value, and is compared as unsigned against a register carrying an immediate. Verifier deduces in reg_set_min_max() that since the compare is unsigned and operation is greater than (>), that in the fall-through/false case, r1's minimum bound must be 0 and maximum bound must be r2. Latter is larger than the bound and thus max value is reset back to being 'invalid' aka BPF_REGISTER_MAX_RANGE. Thus, r1 state is now 'R1=inv,min_value=0'. The subsequent test ... 11: (65) if r1 s> 0x1 goto pc+2 ... is a signed compare of r1 with immediate value 1. Here, verifier deduces in reg_set_min_max() that since the compare is signed this time and operation is greater than (>), that in the fall-through/false case, we can deduce that r1's maximum bound must be 1, meaning with prior test, we result in r1 having the following state: R1=inv,min_value=0,max_value=1. Given that the actual value this holds is -8, the bounds are wrongly deduced. When this is being added to r0 which holds the map_value(_adj) type, then subsequent store access in above case will go through check_mem_access() which invokes check_map_access_adj(), that will then probe whether the map memory is in bounds based on the min_value and max_value as well as access size since the actual unknown value is min_value <= x <= max_value; commit fce366a9 ("bpf, verifier: fix alu ops against map_value{, _adj} register types") provides some more explanation on the semantics. It's worth to note in this context that in the current code, min_value and max_value tracking are used for two things, i) dynamic map value access via check_map_access_adj() and since commit 06c1c049 ("bpf: allow helpers access to variable memory") ii) also enforced at check_helper_mem_access() when passing a memory address (pointer to packet, map value, stack) and length pair to a helper and the length in this case is an unknown value defining an access range through min_value/max_value in that case. The min_value/max_value tracking is /not/ used in the direct packet access case to track ranges. However, the issue also affects case ii), for example, the following crafted program based on the same principle must be rejected as well: 0: (b7) r2 = 0 1: (bf) r3 = r10 2: (07) r3 += -512 3: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = -8 4: (79) r4 = *(u64 *)(r10 -16) 5: (b7) r6 = -1 6: (2d) if r4 > r6 goto pc+5 R1=ctx R2=imm0,min_value=0,max_value=0,min_align=2147483648 R3=fp-512 R4=inv,min_value=0 R6=imm-1,max_value=18446744073709551615,min_align=1 R10=fp 7: (65) if r4 s> 0x1 goto pc+4 R1=ctx R2=imm0,min_value=0,max_value=0,min_align=2147483648 R3=fp-512 R4=inv,min_value=0,max_value=1 R6=imm-1,max_value=18446744073709551615,min_align=1 R10=fp 8: (07) r4 += 1 9: (b7) r5 = 0 10: (6a) *(u16 *)(r10 -512) = 0 11: (85) call bpf_skb_load_bytes#26 12: (b7) r0 = 0 13: (95) exit Meaning, while we initialize the max_value stack slot that the verifier thinks we access in the [1,2] range, in reality we pass -7 as length which is interpreted as u32 in the helper. Thus, this issue is relevant also for the case of helper ranges. Resetting both bounds in check_reg_overflow() in case only one of them exceeds limits is also not enough as similar test can be created that uses values which are within range, thus also here learned min value in r1 is incorrect when mixed with later signed test to create a range: 0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 1: (bf) r2 = r10 2: (07) r2 += -8 3: (18) r1 = 0xffff880ad081fa00 5: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1 6: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+7 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp 7: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = -8 8: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 -16) 9: (b7) r2 = 2 10: (3d) if r2 >= r1 goto pc+3 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=3 R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R10=fp 11: (65) if r1 s> 0x4 goto pc+2 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=3,max_value=4 R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R10=fp 12: (0f) r0 += r1 13: (72) *(u8 *)(r0 +0) = 0 R0=map_value_adj(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=3,max_value=4 R1=inv,min_value=3,max_value=4 R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R10=fp 14: (b7) r0 = 0 15: (95) exit This leaves us with two options for fixing this: i) to invalidate all prior learned information once we switch signed context, ii) to track min/max signed and unsigned boundaries separately as done in [0]. (Given latter introduces major changes throughout the whole verifier, it's rather net-next material, thus this patch follows option i), meaning we can derive bounds either from only signed tests or only unsigned tests.) There is still the case of adjust_reg_min_max_vals(), where we adjust bounds on ALU operations, meaning programs like the following where boundaries on the reg get mixed in context later on when bounds are merged on the dst reg must get rejected, too: 0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 1: (bf) r2 = r10 2: (07) r2 += -8 3: (18) r1 = 0xffff89b2bf87ce00 5: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1 6: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+6 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp 7: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = -8 8: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 -16) 9: (b7) r2 = 2 10: (3d) if r2 >= r1 goto pc+2 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=3 R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R10=fp 11: (b7) r7 = 1 12: (65) if r7 s> 0x0 goto pc+2 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=3 R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R7=imm1,max_value=0 R10=fp 13: (b7) r0 = 0 14: (95) exit from 12 to 15: R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=3 R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R7=imm1,min_value=1 R10=fp 15: (0f) r7 += r1 16: (65) if r7 s> 0x4 goto pc+2 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=3 R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R7=inv,min_value=4,max_value=4 R10=fp 17: (0f) r0 += r7 18: (72) *(u8 *)(r0 +0) = 0 R0=map_value_adj(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=4,max_value=4 R1=inv,min_value=3 R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R7=inv,min_value=4,max_value=4 R10=fp 19: (b7) r0 = 0 20: (95) exit Meaning, in adjust_reg_min_max_vals() we must also reset range values on the dst when src/dst registers have mixed signed/ unsigned derived min/max value bounds with one unbounded value as otherwise they can be added together deducing false boundaries. Once both boundaries are established from either ALU ops or compare operations w/o mixing signed/unsigned insns, then they can safely be added to other regs also having both boundaries established. Adding regs with one unbounded side to a map value where the bounded side has been learned w/o mixing ops is possible, but the resulting map value won't recover from that, meaning such op is considered invalid on the time of actual access. Invalid bounds are set on the dst reg in case i) src reg, or ii) in case dst reg already had them. The only way to recover would be to perform i) ALU ops but only 'add' is allowed on map value types or ii) comparisons, but these are disallowed on pointers in case they span a range. This is fine as only BPF_JEQ and BPF_JNE may be performed on PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL registers which potentially turn them into PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE type depending on the branch, so only here min/max value cannot be invalidated for them. In terms of state pruning, value_from_signed is considered as well in states_equal() when dealing with adjusted map values. With regards to breaking existing programs, there is a small risk, but use-cases are rather quite narrow where this could occur and mixing compares probably unlikely. Joint work with Josef and Edward. [0] https://lists.iovisor.org/pipermail/iovisor-dev/2017-June/000822.html Fixes: 48461135 ("bpf: allow access into map value arrays") Reported-by:Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com> Signed-off-by:
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Signed-off-by:
Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com> Signed-off-by:
David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment