From 545722cb0fc993226a01844fb27cf832459eb1c0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Edward Cree Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 14:36:57 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] selftests/bpf: subtraction bounds test There is a bug in the verifier's handling of BPF_SUB: [a,b] - [c,d] yields was [a-c, b-d] rather than the correct [a-d, b-c]. So here is a test which, with the bogus handling, will produce ranges of [0,0] and thus allowed accesses; whereas the correct handling will give a range of [-255, 255] (and hence the right-shift will give a range of [0, 255]) and the accesses will be rejected. Signed-off-by: Edward Cree Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: David S. Miller --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c index af7d173910f4..addea82f76c9 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c @@ -5980,6 +5980,34 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .result = REJECT, .result_unpriv = REJECT, }, + { + "subtraction bounds (map value)", + .insns = { + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, + BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 9), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_1, 0xff, 7), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_0, 1), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_3, 0xff, 5), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_3), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_1, 56), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .fixup_map1 = { 3 }, + .errstr_unpriv = "R0 pointer arithmetic prohibited", + .errstr = "R0 min value is negative, either use unsigned index or do a if (index >=0) check.", + .result = REJECT, + .result_unpriv = REJECT, + }, }; static int probe_filter_length(const struct bpf_insn *fp) From 9305706c2e808ae59f1eb201867f82f1ddf6d7a6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Edward Cree Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 14:37:34 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] bpf/verifier: fix min/max handling in BPF_SUB We have to subtract the src max from the dst min, and vice-versa, since (e.g.) the smallest result comes from the largest subtrahend. Fixes: 484611357c19 ("bpf: allow access into map value arrays") Signed-off-by: Edward Cree Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: David S. Miller --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 21 +++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index af9e84a4944e..664d93972373 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -1865,10 +1865,12 @@ static void adjust_reg_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, * do our normal operations to the register, we need to set the values * to the min/max since they are undefined. */ - if (min_val == BPF_REGISTER_MIN_RANGE) - dst_reg->min_value = BPF_REGISTER_MIN_RANGE; - if (max_val == BPF_REGISTER_MAX_RANGE) - dst_reg->max_value = BPF_REGISTER_MAX_RANGE; + if (opcode != BPF_SUB) { + if (min_val == BPF_REGISTER_MIN_RANGE) + dst_reg->min_value = BPF_REGISTER_MIN_RANGE; + if (max_val == BPF_REGISTER_MAX_RANGE) + dst_reg->max_value = BPF_REGISTER_MAX_RANGE; + } switch (opcode) { case BPF_ADD: @@ -1879,10 +1881,17 @@ static void adjust_reg_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, dst_reg->min_align = min(src_align, dst_align); break; case BPF_SUB: + /* If one of our values was at the end of our ranges, then the + * _opposite_ value in the dst_reg goes to the end of our range. + */ + if (min_val == BPF_REGISTER_MIN_RANGE) + dst_reg->max_value = BPF_REGISTER_MAX_RANGE; + if (max_val == BPF_REGISTER_MAX_RANGE) + dst_reg->min_value = BPF_REGISTER_MIN_RANGE; if (dst_reg->min_value != BPF_REGISTER_MIN_RANGE) - dst_reg->min_value -= min_val; + dst_reg->min_value -= max_val; if (dst_reg->max_value != BPF_REGISTER_MAX_RANGE) - dst_reg->max_value -= max_val; + dst_reg->max_value -= min_val; dst_reg->min_align = min(src_align, dst_align); break; case BPF_MUL: