[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YMkcYn4dyZBY/ze+@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 14:32:18 -0700
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>,
Kurt Manucredo <fuzzybritches0@...il.com>,
syzbot+bed360704c521841c85d@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
keescook@...omium.org, yhs@...com, dvyukov@...gle.com,
andrii@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, hawk@...nel.org, john.fastabend@...il.com,
kafai@...com, kpsingh@...nel.org, kuba@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
songliubraving@...com, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
nathan@...nel.org, ndesaulniers@...gle.com,
clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] bpf: core: fix shift-out-of-bounds in ___bpf_prog_run
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 11:08:18PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 6/15/21 9:33 PM, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 07:51:07PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> > >
> > > As I understand it, the UBSAN report is coming from the eBPF interpreter,
> > > which is the *slow path* and indeed on many production systems is
> > > compiled out for hardening reasons (CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON).
> > > Perhaps a better approach to the fix would be to change the interpreter
> > > to compute "DST = DST << (SRC & 63);" (and similar for other shifts and
> > > bitnesses), thus matching the behaviour of most chips' shift opcodes.
> > > This would shut up UBSAN, without affecting JIT code generation.
> >
> > Yes, I suggested that last week
> > (https://lkml.kernel.org/netdev/YMJvbGEz0xu9JU9D@gmail.com). The AND will even
> > get optimized out when compiling for most CPUs.
>
> Did you check if the generated interpreter code for e.g. x86 is the same
> before/after with that?
Yes, on x86_64 with gcc 10.2.1, the disassembly of ___bpf_prog_run() is the same
both before and after (with UBSAN disabled). Here is the patch I used:
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
index 5e31ee9f7512..996db8a1bbfb 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
@@ -1407,12 +1407,30 @@ static u64 ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn)
DST = (u32) DST OP (u32) IMM; \
CONT;
+ /*
+ * Explicitly mask the shift amounts with 63 or 31 to avoid undefined
+ * behavior. Normally this won't affect the generated code.
+ */
+#define ALU_SHIFT(OPCODE, OP) \
+ ALU64_##OPCODE##_X: \
+ DST = DST OP (SRC & 63);\
+ CONT; \
+ ALU_##OPCODE##_X: \
+ DST = (u32) DST OP ((u32)SRC & 31); \
+ CONT; \
+ ALU64_##OPCODE##_K: \
+ DST = DST OP (IMM & 63); \
+ CONT; \
+ ALU_##OPCODE##_K: \
+ DST = (u32) DST OP ((u32)IMM & 31); \
+ CONT;
+
ALU(ADD, +)
ALU(SUB, -)
ALU(AND, &)
ALU(OR, |)
- ALU(LSH, <<)
- ALU(RSH, >>)
+ ALU_SHIFT(LSH, <<)
+ ALU_SHIFT(RSH, >>)
ALU(XOR, ^)
ALU(MUL, *)
#undef ALU
>
> How does UBSAN detect this in general? I would assume generated code for
> interpreter wrt DST = DST << SRC would not really change as otherwise all
> valid cases would be broken as well, given compiler has not really room
> to optimize or make any assumptions here, in other words, it's only
> propagating potential quirks under such cases from underlying arch.
UBSAN inserts code that checks that shift amounts are in range.
In theory there are cases where the undefined behavior of out-of-range shift
amounts could cause problems. For example, a compiler could make the following
function always return true, as it can assume that 'b' is in the range [0, 31].
bool foo(int a, int b, int *c)
{
*c = a << b;
return b < 32;
}
- Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
