kernel.git/kernel/bpf/verifier.c, branch linux-5.18.y

bpf: Suppress 'passing zero to PTR_ERR' warning

2022-08-17T12:42:35Z

commit 1ec5ee8c8a5a65ea377f8bea64bf4d5b743f6f79 upstream. Kernel Test Robot complains about passing zero to PTR_ERR for the said line, suppress it by using PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO. Fixes: c0a5a21c25f3 ("bpf: Allow storing referenced kptr in map") Reported-by: kernel test robot Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220521132620.1976921-1-memxor@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: Allow storing referenced kptr in map

2022-08-17T12:41:08Z

[ Upstream commit c0a5a21c25f37c9fd7b36072f9968cdff1e4aa13 ] Extending the code in previous commits, introduce referenced kptr support, which needs to be tagged using 'kptr_ref' tag instead. Unlike unreferenced kptr, referenced kptr have a lot more restrictions. In addition to the type matching, only a newly introduced bpf_kptr_xchg helper is allowed to modify the map value at that offset. This transfers the referenced pointer being stored into the map, releasing the references state for the program, and returning the old value and creating new reference state for the returned pointer. Similar to unreferenced pointer case, return value for this case will also be PTR_TO_BTF_ID_OR_NULL. The reference for the returned pointer must either be eventually released by calling the corresponding release function, otherwise it must be transferred into another map. It is also allowed to call bpf_kptr_xchg with a NULL pointer, to clear the value, and obtain the old value if any. BPF_LDX, BPF_STX, and BPF_ST cannot access referenced kptr. A future commit will permit using BPF_LDX for such pointers, but attempt at making it safe, since the lifetime of object won't be guaranteed. There are valid reasons to enforce the restriction of permitting only bpf_kptr_xchg to operate on referenced kptr. The pointer value must be consistent in face of concurrent modification, and any prior values contained in the map must also be released before a new one is moved into the map. To ensure proper transfer of this ownership, bpf_kptr_xchg returns the old value, which the verifier would require the user to either free or move into another map, and releases the reference held for the pointer being moved in. In the future, direct BPF_XCHG instruction may also be permitted to work like bpf_kptr_xchg helper. Note that process_kptr_func doesn't have to call check_helper_mem_access, since we already disallow rdonly/wronly flags for map, which is what check_map_access_type checks, and we already ensure the PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE refers to kptr by obtaining its off_desc, so check_map_access is also not required. Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220424214901.2743946-4-memxor@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

bpf: Tag argument to be released in bpf_func_proto

2022-08-17T12:41:08Z

[ Upstream commit 8f14852e89113d738c99c375b4c8b8b7e1073df1 ] Add a new type flag for bpf_arg_type that when set tells verifier that for a release function, that argument's register will be the one for which meta.ref_obj_id will be set, and which will then be released using release_reference. To capture the regno, introduce a new field release_regno in bpf_call_arg_meta. This would be required in the next patch, where we may either pass NULL or a refcounted pointer as an argument to the release function bpf_kptr_xchg. Just releasing only when meta.ref_obj_id is set is not enough, as there is a case where the type of argument needed matches, but the ref_obj_id is set to 0. Hence, we must enforce that whenever meta.ref_obj_id is zero, the register that is to be released can only be NULL for a release function. Since we now indicate whether an argument is to be released in bpf_func_proto itself, is_release_function helper has lost its utitlity, hence refactor code to work without it, and just rely on meta.release_regno to know when to release state for a ref_obj_id. Still, the restriction of one release argument and only one ref_obj_id passed to BPF helper or kfunc remains. This may be lifted in the future. Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220424214901.2743946-3-memxor@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

bpf: Allow storing unreferenced kptr in map

2022-08-17T12:41:07Z

[ Upstream commit 61df10c7799e27807ad5e459eec9d77cddf8bf45 ] This commit introduces a new pointer type 'kptr' which can be embedded in a map value to hold a PTR_TO_BTF_ID stored by a BPF program during its invocation. When storing such a kptr, BPF program's PTR_TO_BTF_ID register must have the same type as in the map value's BTF, and loading a kptr marks the destination register as PTR_TO_BTF_ID with the correct kernel BTF and BTF ID. Such kptr are unreferenced, i.e. by the time another invocation of the BPF program loads this pointer, the object which the pointer points to may not longer exist. Since PTR_TO_BTF_ID loads (using BPF_LDX) are patched to PROBE_MEM loads by the verifier, it would safe to allow user to still access such invalid pointer, but passing such pointers into BPF helpers and kfuncs should not be permitted. A future patch in this series will close this gap. The flexibility offered by allowing programs to dereference such invalid pointers while being safe at runtime frees the verifier from doing complex lifetime tracking. As long as the user may ensure that the object remains valid, it can ensure data read by it from the kernel object is valid. The user indicates that a certain pointer must be treated as kptr capable of accepting stores of PTR_TO_BTF_ID of a certain type, by using a BTF type tag 'kptr' on the pointed to type of the pointer. Then, this information is recorded in the object BTF which will be passed into the kernel by way of map's BTF information. The name and kind from the map value BTF is used to look up the in-kernel type, and the actual BTF and BTF ID is recorded in the map struct in a new kptr_off_tab member. For now, only storing pointers to structs is permitted. An example of this specification is shown below: #define __kptr __attribute__((btf_type_tag("kptr"))) struct map_value { ... struct task_struct __kptr *task; ... }; Then, in a BPF program, user may store PTR_TO_BTF_ID with the type task_struct into the map, and then load it later. Note that the destination register is marked PTR_TO_BTF_ID_OR_NULL, as the verifier cannot know whether the value is NULL or not statically, it must treat all potential loads at that map value offset as loading a possibly NULL pointer. Only BPF_LDX, BPF_STX, and BPF_ST (with insn->imm = 0 to denote NULL) are allowed instructions that can access such a pointer. On BPF_LDX, the destination register is updated to be a PTR_TO_BTF_ID, and on BPF_STX, it is checked whether the source register type is a PTR_TO_BTF_ID with same BTF type as specified in the map BTF. The access size must always be BPF_DW. For the map in map support, the kptr_off_tab for outer map is copied from the inner map's kptr_off_tab. It was chosen to do a deep copy instead of introducing a refcount to kptr_off_tab, because the copy only needs to be done when paramterizing using inner_map_fd in the map in map case, hence would be unnecessary for all other users. It is not permitted to use MAP_FREEZE command and mmap for BPF map having kptrs, similar to the bpf_timer case. A kptr also requires that BPF program has both read and write access to the map (hence both BPF_F_RDONLY_PROG and BPF_F_WRONLY_PROG are disallowed). Note that check_map_access must be called from both check_helper_mem_access and for the BPF instructions, hence the kptr check must distinguish between ACCESS_DIRECT and ACCESS_HELPER, and reject ACCESS_HELPER cases. We rename stack_access_src to bpf_access_src and reuse it for this purpose. Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220424214901.2743946-2-memxor@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

bpf: Move check_ptr_off_reg before check_map_access

2022-08-17T12:41:07Z

[ Upstream commit e9147b4422e1f35b9c229c980c596ccf03d61562 ] Some functions in next patch want to use this function, and those functions will be called by check_map_access, hence move it before check_map_access. Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Joanne Koong Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220415160354.1050687-3-memxor@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

bpf: Fix subprog names in stack traces.

2022-08-17T12:41:05Z

[ Upstream commit 9c7c48d6a1e2eb5192ad5294c1c4dbd42a88e88b ] The commit 7337224fc150 ("bpf: Improve the info.func_info and info.func_info_rec_size behavior") accidently made bpf_prog_ksym_set_name() conservative for bpf subprograms. Fixed it so instead of "bpf_prog_tag_F" the stack traces print "bpf_prog_tag_full_subprog_name". Fixes: 7337224fc150 ("bpf: Improve the info.func_info and info.func_info_rec_size behavior") Reported-by: Tejun Heo Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau Acked-by: Yonghong Song Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220714211637.17150-1-alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

bpf, x64: Add predicate for bpf2bpf with tailcalls support in JIT

2022-08-17T12:41:04Z

[ Upstream commit 95acd8817e66d031d2e6ee7def3f1e1874819317 ] The BPF core/verifier is hard-coded to permit mixing bpf2bpf and tail calls for only x86-64. Change the logic to instead rely on a new weak function 'bool bpf_jit_supports_subprog_tailcalls(void)', which a capable JIT backend can override. Update the x86-64 eBPF JIT to reflect this. Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar [jakub: drop MIPS bits and tweak patch subject] Signed-off-by: Jakub Sitnicki Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220617105735.733938-2-jakub@cloudflare.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

bpf: Fix insufficient bounds propagation from adjust_scalar_min_max_vals

2022-07-12T14:42:13Z

commit 3844d153a41adea718202c10ae91dc96b37453b5 upstream. Kuee reported a corner case where the tnum becomes constant after the call to __reg_bound_offset(), but the register's bounds are not, that is, its min bounds are still not equal to the register's max bounds. This in turn allows to leak pointers through turning a pointer register as is into an unknown scalar via adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(). Before: func#0 @0 0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 0: (b7) r0 = 1 ; R0_w=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) 1: (b7) r3 = 0 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 2: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 3: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 4: (47) r3 |= 32767 ; R3_w=scalar(smin=-9223372036854743041,umin=32767,var_off=(0x7fff; 0xffffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) 5: (75) if r3 s>= 0x0 goto pc+1 ; R3_w=scalar(umin=9223372036854808575,var_off=(0x8000000000007fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 6: (95) exit from 5 to 7: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 7: (d5) if r3 s<= 0x8000 goto pc+1 ; R3=scalar(umin=32769,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 8: (95) exit from 7 to 9: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x8000)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 9: (07) r3 += -32767 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) <--- [*] 10: (95) exit What can be seen here is that R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x8000)) after the operation R3 += -32767 results in a 'malformed' constant, that is, R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)). Intersecting with var_off has not been done at that point via __update_reg_bounds(), which would have improved the umax to be equal to umin. Refactor the tnum <> min/max bounds information flow into a reg_bounds_sync() helper and use it consistently everywhere. After the fix, bounds have been corrected to R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) and thus the register is regarded as a 'proper' constant scalar of 0. After: func#0 @0 0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 0: (b7) r0 = 1 ; R0_w=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) 1: (b7) r3 = 0 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 2: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 3: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 4: (47) r3 |= 32767 ; R3_w=scalar(smin=-9223372036854743041,umin=32767,var_off=(0x7fff; 0xffffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) 5: (75) if r3 s>= 0x0 goto pc+1 ; R3_w=scalar(umin=9223372036854808575,var_off=(0x8000000000007fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 6: (95) exit from 5 to 7: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 7: (d5) if r3 s<= 0x8000 goto pc+1 ; R3=scalar(umin=32769,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 8: (95) exit from 7 to 9: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x8000)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 9: (07) r3 += -32767 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) <--- [*] 10: (95) exit Fixes: b03c9f9fdc37 ("bpf/verifier: track signed and unsigned min/max values") Reported-by: Kuee K1r0a Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko Acked-by: John Fastabend Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220701124727.11153-2-daniel@iogearbox.net Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: Fix incorrect verifier simulation around jmp32's jeq/jne

2022-07-12T14:42:13Z

commit a12ca6277eca6aeeccf66e840c23a2b520e24c8f upstream. Kuee reported a quirk in the jmp32's jeq/jne simulation, namely that the register value does not match expectations for the fall-through path. For example: Before fix: 0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 0: (b7) r2 = 0 ; R2_w=P0 1: (b7) r6 = 563 ; R6_w=P563 2: (87) r2 = -r2 ; R2_w=Pscalar() 3: (87) r2 = -r2 ; R2_w=Pscalar() 4: (4c) w2 |= w6 ; R2_w=Pscalar(umin=563,umax=4294967295,var_off=(0x233; 0xfffffdcc),s32_min=-2147483085) R6_w=P563 5: (56) if w2 != 0x8 goto pc+1 ; R2_w=P571 <--- [*] 6: (95) exit R0 !read_ok After fix: 0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 0: (b7) r2 = 0 ; R2_w=P0 1: (b7) r6 = 563 ; R6_w=P563 2: (87) r2 = -r2 ; R2_w=Pscalar() 3: (87) r2 = -r2 ; R2_w=Pscalar() 4: (4c) w2 |= w6 ; R2_w=Pscalar(umin=563,umax=4294967295,var_off=(0x233; 0xfffffdcc),s32_min=-2147483085) R6_w=P563 5: (56) if w2 != 0x8 goto pc+1 ; R2_w=P8 <--- [*] 6: (95) exit R0 !read_ok As can be seen on line 5 for the branch fall-through path in R2 [*] is that given condition w2 != 0x8 is false, verifier should conclude that r2 = 8 as upper 32 bit are known to be zero. However, verifier incorrectly concludes that r2 = 571 which is far off. The problem is it only marks false{true}_reg as known in the switch for JE/NE case, but at the end of the function, it uses {false,true}_{64,32}off to update {false,true}_reg->var_off and they still hold the prior value of {false,true}_reg->var_off before it got marked as known. The subsequent __reg_combine_32_into_64() then propagates this old var_off and derives new bounds. The information between min/max bounds on {false,true}_reg from setting the register to known const combined with the {false,true}_reg->var_off based on the old information then derives wrong register data. Fix it by detangling the BPF_JEQ/BPF_JNE cases and updating relevant {false,true}_{64,32}off tnums along with the register marking to known constant. Fixes: 3f50f132d840 ("bpf: Verifier, do explicit ALU32 bounds tracking") Reported-by: Kuee K1r0a Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko Acked-by: John Fastabend Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220701124727.11153-1-daniel@iogearbox.net Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: Do write access check for kfunc and global func

2022-06-06T06:49:00Z

commit be77354a3d7ebd4897ee18eca26dca6df9224c76 upstream. When passing pointer to some map value to kfunc or global func, in verifier we are passing meta as NULL to various functions, which uses meta->raw_mode to check whether memory is being written to. Since some kfunc or global funcs may also write to memory pointers they receive as arguments, we must check for write access to memory. E.g. in some case map may be read only and this will be missed by current checks. However meta->raw_mode allows for uninitialized memory (e.g. on stack), since there is not enough info available through BTF, we must perform one call for read access (raw_mode = false), and one for write access (raw_mode = true). Fixes: e5069b9c23b3 ("bpf: Support pointers in global func args") Fixes: d583691c47dc ("bpf: Introduce mem, size argument pair support for kfunc") Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220319080827.73251-2-memxor@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman