BPF fixes on map_value_adj reg types

This set adds two fixes for map_value_adj register type in the verifier and user space tests along with them for the BPF self test suite. For details, please see individual patches.

Thanks!

Daniel Borkmann (3):
bpf, verifier: fix alu ops against map_value{,_adj} register types bpf, verifier: fix rejection of unaligned access checks for map_value_adj
bpf: add various verifier test cases for self-tests

 kernel/bpf/verifier.c                       |  59 +++---
 tools/include/linux/filter.h                |  10 ++
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile        |   9 +-
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 270 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 4 files changed, 322 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)

1.9.3

While looking into map_value_adj, I noticed that alu operations directly on the map_value() resp. map_value_adj() register (any alu operation on a map_value() register will turn it into a map_value_adj() typed register) are not sufficiently protected against some of the operations. Two non-exhaustive examples are provided that the verifier needs to reject:

i) BPF_AND on r0 (map_value_adj):

0: (bf) r2 = r10
1: (07) r2 += -8
2: (7a) *(u64 *)(r2 +0) = 0
3: (18) r1 = 0xbf842a00
5: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1
6: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2
R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=48,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp
7: (57) r0 &= 8
8: (7a) *(u64 *)(r0 +0) = 22
R0=map_value_adj(ks=8,vs=48,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=8 R10=fp
9: (95) exit

from 6 to 9: R0=inv,min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp 9: (95) exit
processed 10 insns

ii) BPF_ADD in 32 bit mode on r0 (map_value_adj):

0: (bf) r2 = r10
1: (07) r2 += -8
2: (7a) *(u64 *)(r2 +0) = 0
3: (18) r1 = 0xc24eee00
5: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1
6: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2
R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=48,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp
7: (04) (u32) r0 += (u32) 0
8: (7a) *(u64 *)(r0 +0) = 22
R0=map_value_adj(ks=8,vs=48,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp
9: (95) exit

from 6 to 9: R0=inv,min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp 9: (95) exit
processed 10 insns

Issue is, while min_value / max_value boundaries for the access are adjusted appropriately, we change the pointer value in a way that cannot be sufficiently tracked anymore from its origin. Operations like BPF_{AND,OR,DIV,MUL,etc} on a destination register that is PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE{,_ADJ} was probably unintended, in fact, all the test cases coming with 484611357c19 ("bpf: allow access into map value arrays") perform BPF_ADD only on the destination register that is PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_ADJ.

Only for UNKNOWN_VALUE register types such operations make sense, f.e. with unknown memory content fetched initially from a constant offset from the map value memory into a register. That register is then later tested against lower / upper bounds, so that the verifier can then do the tracking of min_value / max_value, and properly check once that UNKNOWN_VALUE register is added to the destination register with type PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE{,_ADJ}. This is also what the original use-case is solving. Note, tracking on what is being added is done through adjust_reg_min_max_vals() and later access to the map value enforced with these boundaries and the given offset from the insn through check_map_access_adj().

Tests will fail for non-root environment due to prohibited pointer arithmetic, in particular in check_alu_op(), we bail out on the is_pointer_value() check on the dst_reg (which is false in root case as we allow for pointer arithmetic via env->allow_ptr_leaks).

Similarly to PTR_TO_PACKET, one way to fix it is to restrict the allowed operations on PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE{,_ADJ} registers to 64 bit mode BPF_ADD. The test_verifier suite runs fine after the patch and it also rejects mentioned test cases.

---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

index 5e6202e..86dedde 100644
@@ -1925,6 +1925,7 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn)
 		 * register as unknown.
 		 */
 		if (env->allow_ptr_leaks &&
+		    BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64 && opcode == BPF_ADD &&
 		    (dst_reg->type == PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE ||
 		     dst_reg->type == PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_ADJ))
 			dst_reg->type = PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_ADJ;

1.9.3

Currently, the verifier doesn't reject unaligned access for map_value_adj register types. Commit 484611357c19 ("bpf: allow access into map value arrays") added logic to check_ptr_alignment() extending it from PTR_TO_PACKET to also PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_ADJ, but for PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_ADJ no enforcement is in place, because reg->id for PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_ADJ reg types is never non-zero, meaning, we can cause BPF_H/_W/_DW-based unaligned access for architectures not supporting efficient unaligned access, and thus worst case could raise exceptions on some archs that are unable to correct the unaligned access or perform a different memory access to the actual requested one and such.

i) Unaligned load with !CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS on r0 (map_value_adj):

0: (bf) r2 = r10
1: (07) r2 += -8
2: (7a) *(u64 *)(r2 +0) = 0
3: (18) r1 = 0x42533a00
5: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1
6: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+11

    R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=48,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp
   7: (61) r1 = *(u32 *)(r0 +0)
   8: (35) if r1 >= 0xb goto pc+9
    R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=48,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=0,max_value=10 R10=fp
   9: (07) r0 += 3
  10: (79) r7 = *(u64 *)(r0 +0)
    R0=map_value_adj(ks=8,vs=48,id=0),min_value=3,max_value=3 R1=inv,min_value=0,max_value=10 R10=fp
  11: (79) r7 = *(u64 *)(r0 +2)
    R0=map_value_adj(ks=8,vs=48,id=0),min_value=3,max_value=3 R1=inv,min_value=0,max_value=10 R7=inv R10=fp

[...]

ii) Unaligned store with !CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS

    on r0 (map_value_adj):

0: (bf) r2 = r10
1: (07) r2 += -8
2: (7a) *(u64 *)(r2 +0) = 0
3: (18) r1 = 0x4df16a00
5: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1
6: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+19

    R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=48,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp
   7: (07) r0 += 3
   8: (7a) *(u64 *)(r0 +0) = 42
    R0=map_value_adj(ks=8,vs=48,id=0),min_value=3,max_value=3 R10=fp
   9: (7a) *(u64 *)(r0 +2) = 43
    R0=map_value_adj(ks=8,vs=48,id=0),min_value=3,max_value=3 R10=fp
  10: (7a) *(u64 *)(r0 -2) = 44
    R0=map_value_adj(ks=8,vs=48,id=0),min_value=3,max_value=3 R10=fp

[...]

For the PTR_TO_PACKET type, reg->id is initially zero when skb->data was fetched, it later receives a reg->id from env->id_gen generator once another register with UNKNOWN_VALUE type was added to it via check_packet_ptr_add(). The purpose of this reg->id is twofold: i) it is used in find_good_pkt_pointers() for setting the allowed access range for regs with PTR_TO_PACKET of same id once verifier matched on data/data_end tests, and ii) for check_ptr_alignment() to determine that when not having efficient unaligned access and register with UNKNOWN_VALUE was added to PTR_TO_PACKET, that we're only allowed to access the content bytewise due to unknown unalignment. reg->id was never intended for PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE{,_ADJ} types and thus is always zero, the only marking is in PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL that was added after 484611357c19 via 57a09bf0a416 ("bpf: Detect identical PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL registers"). Above tests will fail for non-root environment due to prohibited pointer arithmetic.

The fix splits register-type specific checks into their own helper instead of keeping them combined, so we don't run into a similar issue in future once we extend check_ptr_alignment() further and forget to add reg->type checks for some of the checks.

---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

index 86dedde..a834068 100644
@@ -765,38 +765,56 @@ static bool is_pointer_value(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno)
 	}
 }
 
-static int check_ptr_alignment(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
-			       struct bpf_reg_state *reg, int off, int size)
+static int check_pkt_ptr_alignment(const struct bpf_reg_state *reg,
+				   int off, int size)
 {
-	if (reg->type != PTR_TO_PACKET && reg->type != PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_ADJ) {
-		if (off % size != 0) {
-			verbose("misaligned access off %d size %d\n",
-				off, size);
-			return -EACCES;
-		} else {
-			return 0;
-		}
-	}
-
-	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS))
-		/* misaligned access to packet is ok on x86,arm,arm64 */
-		return 0;
-
 	if (reg->id && size != 1) {
-		verbose("Unknown packet alignment. Only byte-sized access allowed\n");
+		verbose("Unknown alignment. Only byte-sized access allowed in packet access.\n");
 		return -EACCES;
 	}
 
 	/* skb->data is NET_IP_ALIGN-ed */
-	if (reg->type == PTR_TO_PACKET &&
-	    (NET_IP_ALIGN + reg->off + off) % size != 0) {
+	if ((NET_IP_ALIGN + reg->off + off) % size != 0) {
 		verbose("misaligned packet access off %d+%d+%d size %d\n",
 			NET_IP_ALIGN, reg->off, off, size);
 		return -EACCES;
 	}
+
 	return 0;
 }
 
+static int check_val_ptr_alignment(const struct bpf_reg_state *reg,
+				   int size)
+{
+	if (size != 1) {
+		verbose("Unknown alignment. Only byte-sized access allowed in value access.\n");
+		return -EACCES;
+	}
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static int check_ptr_alignment(const struct bpf_reg_state *reg,
+			       int off, int size)
+{
+	switch (reg->type) {
+	case PTR_TO_PACKET:
+		return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS) ? 0 :
+		       check_pkt_ptr_alignment(reg, off, size);
+	case PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_ADJ:
+		return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS) ? 0 :
+		       check_val_ptr_alignment(reg, size);
+	default:
+		if (off % size != 0) {
+			verbose("misaligned access off %d size %d\n",
+				off, size);
+			return -EACCES;
+		}
+
+		return 0;
+	}
+}
+
 /* check whether memory at (regno + off) is accessible for t = (read | write)
  * if t==write, value_regno is a register which value is stored into memory
  * if t==read, value_regno is a register which will receive the value from memory

@@ -818,7 +836,7 @@ static int check_mem_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 regno, int off,
 	if (size < 0)
 		return size;
 
-	err = check_ptr_alignment(env, reg, off, size);
+	err = check_ptr_alignment(reg, off, size);
 	if (err)
 		return err;
 

1.9.3

Add a couple of test cases, for example, probing for xadd on a spilled pointer to packet and map_value_adj register, various other map_value_adj tests including the unaligned load/store, and trying out pointer arithmetic on map_value_adj register itself. For the unaligned load/store, we need to figure out whether the architecture has efficient unaligned access and need to mark affected tests accordingly.

---
 tools/include/linux/filter.h                |  10 ++
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile        |   9 +-
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 270 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 3 files changed, 283 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

index 122153b..390d7c9 100644
@@ -168,6 +168,16 @@
 		.off   = OFF,					\
 		.imm   = 0 })
 
+/* Atomic memory add, *(uint *)(dst_reg + off16) += src_reg */
+
+#define BPF_STX_XADD(SIZE, DST, SRC, OFF)			\
+	((struct bpf_insn) {					\
+		.code  = BPF_STX | BPF_SIZE(SIZE) | BPF_XADD,	\
+		.dst_reg = DST,					\
+		.src_reg = SRC,					\
+		.off   = OFF,					\
+		.imm   = 0 })
+
 /* Memory store, *(uint *) (dst_reg + off16) = imm32 */
 
 #define BPF_ST_MEM(SIZE, DST, OFF, IMM)				\

index 6a1ad58..9af09e8 100644
@@ -1,7 +1,14 @@
 LIBDIR := ../../../lib
 BPFDIR := $(LIBDIR)/bpf
+APIDIR := ../../../include/uapi
+GENDIR := ../../../../include/generated
+GENHDR := $(GENDIR)/autoconf.h
 
-CFLAGS += -Wall -O2 -I../../../include/uapi -I$(LIBDIR)
+ifneq ($(wildcard $(GENHDR)),)
+  GENFLAGS := -DHAVE_GENHDR
+endif
+
+CFLAGS += -Wall -O2 -I$(APIDIR) -I$(LIBDIR) -I$(GENDIR) $(GENFLAGS)
 LDLIBS += -lcap
 
 TEST_GEN_PROGS = test_verifier test_tag test_maps test_lru_map test_lpm_map

1.9.3

From: Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 02:24:01 +0200

Series applied and queued up for -stable, thanks Daniel.