Commit 6f16101e authored by Daniel Borkmann's avatar Daniel Borkmann Committed by Alexei Starovoitov
Browse files

bpf: mark dst unknown on inconsistent {s, u}bounds adjustments 



syzkaller generated a BPF proglet and triggered a warning with
the following:

  0: (b7) r0 = 0
  1: (d5) if r0 s<= 0x0 goto pc+0
   R0=inv0 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0
  2: (1f) r0 -= r1
   R0=inv0 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0
  verifier internal error: known but bad sbounds

What happens is that in the first insn, r0's min/max value
are both 0 due to the immediate assignment, later in the jsle
test the bounds are updated for the min value in the false
path, meaning, they yield smin_val = 1, smax_val = 0, and when
ctx pointer is subtracted from r0, verifier bails out with the
internal error and throwing a WARN since smin_val != smax_val
for the known constant.

For min_val > max_val scenario it means that reg_set_min_max()
and reg_set_min_max_inv() (which both refine existing bounds)
demonstrated that such branch cannot be taken at runtime.

In above scenario for the case where it will be taken, the
existing [0, 0] bounds are kept intact. Meaning, the rejection
is not due to a verifier internal error, and therefore the
WARN() is not necessary either.

We could just reject such cases in adjust_{ptr,scalar}_min_max_vals()
when either known scalars have smin_val != smax_val or
umin_val != umax_val or any scalar reg with bounds
smin_val > smax_val or umin_val > umax_val. However, there
may be a small risk of breakage of buggy programs, so handle
this more gracefully and in adjust_{ptr,scalar}_min_max_vals()
just taint the dst reg as unknown scalar when we see ops with
such kind of src reg.

Reported-by: default avatar <syzbot+6d362cadd45dc0a12ba4@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDaniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAlexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
parent f37a8cb8

kernel/bpf/verifier.c

+16 −11
Original line number Diff line number Diff line
@@ -1895,17 +1895,13 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, 


	dst_reg = &regs[dst];



	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(known && (smin_val != smax_val))) {

		print_verifier_state(env, env->cur_state);

		verbose(env,

			"verifier internal error: known but bad sbounds\n");

		return -EINVAL;

	}

	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(known && (umin_val != umax_val))) {

		print_verifier_state(env, env->cur_state);

		verbose(env,

			"verifier internal error: known but bad ubounds\n");

		return -EINVAL;

	if ((known && (smin_val != smax_val || umin_val != umax_val)) ||

	    smin_val > smax_val || umin_val > umax_val) {

		/* Taint dst register if offset had invalid bounds derived from

		 * e.g. dead branches.

		 */

		__mark_reg_unknown(dst_reg);

		return 0;

	}



	if (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) != BPF_ALU64) {
@@ -2097,6 +2093,15 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, 
	src_known = tnum_is_const(src_reg.var_off);

	dst_known = tnum_is_const(dst_reg->var_off);



	if ((src_known && (smin_val != smax_val || umin_val != umax_val)) ||

	    smin_val > smax_val || umin_val > umax_val) {

		/* Taint dst register if offset had invalid bounds derived from

		 * e.g. dead branches.

		 */

		__mark_reg_unknown(dst_reg);

		return 0;

	}



	if (!src_known &&

	    opcode != BPF_ADD && opcode != BPF_SUB && opcode != BPF_AND) {

		__mark_reg_unknown(dst_reg);

tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c

+122 −1
Original line number Diff line number Diff line
@@ -6732,7 +6732,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { 
			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, -7),

		},

		.fixup_map1 = { 4 },

		.errstr = "unbounded min value",

		.errstr = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'",

		.result = REJECT,

	},

	{
@@ -8633,6 +8633,127 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { 
		.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,

		.flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,

	},

	{

		"check deducing bounds from const, 1",

		.insns = {

			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),

			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 1, 0),

			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),

			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),

		},

		.result = REJECT,

		.errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar",

	},

	{

		"check deducing bounds from const, 2",

		.insns = {

			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),

			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 1, 1),

			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),

			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSLE, BPF_REG_0, 1, 1),

			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),

			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0),

			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),

		},

		.result = ACCEPT,

	},

	{

		"check deducing bounds from const, 3",

		.insns = {

			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),

			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSLE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 0),

			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),

			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),

		},

		.result = REJECT,

		.errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar",

	},

	{

		"check deducing bounds from const, 4",

		.insns = {

			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),

			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSLE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),

			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),

			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),

			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),

			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0),

			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),

		},

		.result = ACCEPT,

	},

	{

		"check deducing bounds from const, 5",

		.insns = {

			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),

			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),

			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),

			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),

		},

		.result = REJECT,

		.errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar",

	},

	{

		"check deducing bounds from const, 6",

		.insns = {

			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),

			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),

			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),

			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),

			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),

		},

		.result = REJECT,

		.errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar",

	},

	{

		"check deducing bounds from const, 7",

		.insns = {

			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, ~0),

			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 0),

			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0),

			BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1,

				    offsetof(struct __sk_buff, mark)),

			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),

		},

		.result = REJECT,

		.errstr = "dereference of modified ctx ptr",

	},

	{

		"check deducing bounds from const, 8",

		.insns = {

			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, ~0),

			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),

			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0),

			BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1,

				    offsetof(struct __sk_buff, mark)),

			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),

		},

		.result = REJECT,

		.errstr = "dereference of modified ctx ptr",

	},

	{

		"check deducing bounds from const, 9",

		.insns = {

			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),

			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 0),

			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),

			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),

		},

		.result = REJECT,

		.errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar",

	},

	{

		"check deducing bounds from const, 10",

		.insns = {

			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),

			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSLE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 0),

			/* Marks reg as unknown. */

			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_NEG, BPF_REG_0, 0),

			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),

			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),

		},

		.result = REJECT,

		.errstr = "math between ctx pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed",

	},

	{

		"bpf_exit with invalid return code. test1",

		.insns = {

CRA Git | Maintained and supported by SUSTech CRA and CCSE