[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <845ad31f-ca3f-0326-e64b-423a09ea4bea@iogearbox.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 12:09:36 +0200
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
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 6/16/21 12:07 AM, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 11:54:41PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On 6/15/21 11:38 PM, Eric Biggers wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 02:32:18PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>
>> The last one should probably be more specific in terms of 'normally', e.g. that
>> it is expected that the compiler is optimizing this away for archs like x86. Is
>> arm64 also covered by this ... do you happen to know on which archs this won't
>> be the case?
>>
>> Additionally, I think such comment should probably be more clear in that it also
>> needs to give proper guidance to JIT authors that look at the interpreter code to
>> see what they need to implement, in other words, that they don't end up copying
>> an explicit AND instruction emission if not needed there.
>
> Same result on arm64 with gcc 10.2.0.
>
> On arm32 it is different, probably because the 64-bit shifts aren't native in
> that case. I don't know about other architectures. But there aren't many ways
> to implement shifts, and using just the low bits of the shift amount is the most
> logical way.
>
> Please feel free to send out a patch with whatever comment you want. The diff I
> gave was just an example and I am not an expert in BPF.
>
>>
>>>> + */
>>>> +#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;
>>
>> For the *_K cases these are explicitly rejected by the verifier already. Is this
>> required here nevertheless to suppress UBSAN false positive?
>
> No, I just didn't know that these constants are never out of range. Please feel
> free to send out a patch that does this properly.
Summarized and fixed via:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git/commit/?id=28131e9d933339a92f78e7ab6429f4aaaa07061c
Thanks everyone,
Daniel
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.
