From b2157399cc9898260d6031c5bfe45fe137c1fbe7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Alexei Starovoitov Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 17:33:02 -0800 Subject: bpf: prevent out-of-bounds speculation Under speculation, CPUs may mis-predict branches in bounds checks. Thus, memory accesses under a bounds check may be speculated even if the bounds check fails, providing a primitive for building a side channel. To avoid leaking kernel data round up array-based maps and mask the index after bounds check, so speculated load with out of bounds index will load either valid value from the array or zero from the padded area. Unconditionally mask index for all array types even when max_entries are not rounded to power of 2 for root user. When map is created by unpriv user generate a sequence of bpf insns that includes AND operation to make sure that JITed code includes the same 'index & index_mask' operation. If prog_array map is created by unpriv user replace bpf_tail_call(ctx, map, index); with if (index >= max_entries) { index &= map->index_mask; bpf_tail_call(ctx, map, index); } (along with roundup to power 2) to prevent out-of-bounds speculation. There is secondary redundant 'if (index >= max_entries)' in the interpreter and in all JITs, but they can be optimized later if necessary. Other array-like maps (cpumap, devmap, sockmap, perf_event_array, cgroup_array) cannot be used by unpriv, so no changes there. That fixes bpf side of "Variant 1: bounds check bypass (CVE-2017-5753)" on all architectures with and without JIT. v2->v3: Daniel noticed that attack potentially can be crafted via syscall commands without loading the program, so add masking to those paths as well. Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: John Fastabend Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann --- kernel/bpf/arraymap.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) (limited to 'kernel/bpf/arraymap.c') diff --git a/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c b/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c index 7c25426d3cf5..aaa319848e7d 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c @@ -53,9 +53,10 @@ static struct bpf_map *array_map_alloc(union bpf_attr *attr) { bool percpu = attr->map_type == BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY; int numa_node = bpf_map_attr_numa_node(attr); + u32 elem_size, index_mask, max_entries; + bool unpriv = !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN); struct bpf_array *array; u64 array_size; - u32 elem_size; /* check sanity of attributes */ if (attr->max_entries == 0 || attr->key_size != 4 || @@ -72,11 +73,20 @@ static struct bpf_map *array_map_alloc(union bpf_attr *attr) elem_size = round_up(attr->value_size, 8); + max_entries = attr->max_entries; + index_mask = roundup_pow_of_two(max_entries) - 1; + + if (unpriv) + /* round up array size to nearest power of 2, + * since cpu will speculate within index_mask limits + */ + max_entries = index_mask + 1; + array_size = sizeof(*array); if (percpu) - array_size += (u64) attr->max_entries * sizeof(void *); + array_size += (u64) max_entries * sizeof(void *); else - array_size += (u64) attr->max_entries * elem_size; + array_size += (u64) max_entries * elem_size; /* make sure there is no u32 overflow later in round_up() */ if (array_size >= U32_MAX - PAGE_SIZE) @@ -86,6 +96,8 @@ static struct bpf_map *array_map_alloc(union bpf_attr *attr) array = bpf_map_area_alloc(array_size, numa_node); if (!array) return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); + array->index_mask = index_mask; + array->map.unpriv_array = unpriv; /* copy mandatory map attributes */ array->map.map_type = attr->map_type; @@ -121,12 +133,13 @@ static void *array_map_lookup_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key) if (unlikely(index >= array->map.max_entries)) return NULL; - return array->value + array->elem_size * index; + return array->value + array->elem_size * (index & array->index_mask); } /* emit BPF instructions equivalent to C code of array_map_lookup_elem() */ static u32 array_map_gen_lookup(struct bpf_map *map, struct bpf_insn *insn_buf) { + struct bpf_array *array = container_of(map, struct bpf_array, map); struct bpf_insn *insn = insn_buf; u32 elem_size = round_up(map->value_size, 8); const int ret = BPF_REG_0; @@ -135,7 +148,12 @@ static u32 array_map_gen_lookup(struct bpf_map *map, struct bpf_insn *insn_buf) *insn++ = BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, map_ptr, offsetof(struct bpf_array, value)); *insn++ = BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, ret, index, 0); - *insn++ = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGE, ret, map->max_entries, 3); + if (map->unpriv_array) { + *insn++ = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGE, ret, map->max_entries, 4); + *insn++ = BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_AND, ret, array->index_mask); + } else { + *insn++ = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGE, ret, map->max_entries, 3); + } if (is_power_of_2(elem_size)) { *insn++ = BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_LSH, ret, ilog2(elem_size)); @@ -157,7 +175,7 @@ static void *percpu_array_map_lookup_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key) if (unlikely(index >= array->map.max_entries)) return NULL; - return this_cpu_ptr(array->pptrs[index]); + return this_cpu_ptr(array->pptrs[index & array->index_mask]); } int bpf_percpu_array_copy(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, void *value) @@ -177,7 +195,7 @@ int bpf_percpu_array_copy(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, void *value) */ size = round_up(map->value_size, 8); rcu_read_lock(); - pptr = array->pptrs[index]; + pptr = array->pptrs[index & array->index_mask]; for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) { bpf_long_memcpy(value + off, per_cpu_ptr(pptr, cpu), size); off += size; @@ -225,10 +243,11 @@ static int array_map_update_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, void *value, return -EEXIST; if (array->map.map_type == BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY) - memcpy(this_cpu_ptr(array->pptrs[index]), + memcpy(this_cpu_ptr(array->pptrs[index & array->index_mask]), value, map->value_size); else - memcpy(array->value + array->elem_size * index, + memcpy(array->value + + array->elem_size * (index & array->index_mask), value, map->value_size); return 0; } @@ -262,7 +281,7 @@ int bpf_percpu_array_update(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, void *value, */ size = round_up(map->value_size, 8); rcu_read_lock(); - pptr = array->pptrs[index]; + pptr = array->pptrs[index & array->index_mask]; for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) { bpf_long_memcpy(per_cpu_ptr(pptr, cpu), value + off, size); off += size; @@ -613,6 +632,7 @@ static void *array_of_map_lookup_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key) static u32 array_of_map_gen_lookup(struct bpf_map *map, struct bpf_insn *insn_buf) { + struct bpf_array *array = container_of(map, struct bpf_array, map); u32 elem_size = round_up(map->value_size, 8); struct bpf_insn *insn = insn_buf; const int ret = BPF_REG_0; @@ -621,7 +641,12 @@ static u32 array_of_map_gen_lookup(struct bpf_map *map, *insn++ = BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, map_ptr, offsetof(struct bpf_array, value)); *insn++ = BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, ret, index, 0); - *insn++ = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGE, ret, map->max_entries, 5); + if (map->unpriv_array) { + *insn++ = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGE, ret, map->max_entries, 6); + *insn++ = BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_AND, ret, array->index_mask); + } else { + *insn++ = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGE, ret, map->max_entries, 5); + } if (is_power_of_2(elem_size)) *insn++ = BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_LSH, ret, ilog2(elem_size)); else -- cgit From bbeb6e4323dad9b5e0ee9f60c223dd532e2403b1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Borkmann Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 23:25:05 +0100 Subject: bpf, array: fix overflow in max_entries and undefined behavior in index_mask syzkaller tried to alloc a map with 0xfffffffd entries out of a userns, and thus unprivileged. With the recently added logic in b2157399cc98 ("bpf: prevent out-of-bounds speculation") we round this up to the next power of two value for max_entries for unprivileged such that we can apply proper masking into potentially zeroed out map slots. However, this will generate an index_mask of 0xffffffff, and therefore a + 1 will let this overflow into new max_entries of 0. This will pass allocation, etc, and later on map access we still enforce on the original attr->max_entries value which was 0xfffffffd, therefore triggering GPF all over the place. Thus bail out on overflow in such case. Moreover, on 32 bit archs roundup_pow_of_two() can also not be used, since fls_long(max_entries - 1) can result in 32 and 1UL << 32 in 32 bit space is undefined. Therefore, do this by hand in a 64 bit variable. This fixes all the issues triggered by syzkaller's reproducers. Fixes: b2157399cc98 ("bpf: prevent out-of-bounds speculation") Reported-by: syzbot+b0efb8e572d01bce1ae0@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Reported-by: syzbot+6c15e9744f75f2364773@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Reported-by: syzbot+d2f5524fb46fd3b312ee@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Reported-by: syzbot+61d23c95395cc90dbc2b@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Reported-by: syzbot+0d363c942452cca68c01@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov --- kernel/bpf/arraymap.c | 18 +++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) (limited to 'kernel/bpf/arraymap.c') diff --git a/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c b/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c index aaa319848e7d..ab94d304a634 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ static struct bpf_map *array_map_alloc(union bpf_attr *attr) u32 elem_size, index_mask, max_entries; bool unpriv = !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN); struct bpf_array *array; - u64 array_size; + u64 array_size, mask64; /* check sanity of attributes */ if (attr->max_entries == 0 || attr->key_size != 4 || @@ -74,13 +74,25 @@ static struct bpf_map *array_map_alloc(union bpf_attr *attr) elem_size = round_up(attr->value_size, 8); max_entries = attr->max_entries; - index_mask = roundup_pow_of_two(max_entries) - 1; - if (unpriv) + /* On 32 bit archs roundup_pow_of_two() with max_entries that has + * upper most bit set in u32 space is undefined behavior due to + * resulting 1U << 32, so do it manually here in u64 space. + */ + mask64 = fls_long(max_entries - 1); + mask64 = 1ULL << mask64; + mask64 -= 1; + + index_mask = mask64; + if (unpriv) { /* round up array size to nearest power of 2, * since cpu will speculate within index_mask limits */ max_entries = index_mask + 1; + /* Check for overflows. */ + if (max_entries < attr->max_entries) + return ERR_PTR(-E2BIG); + } array_size = sizeof(*array); if (percpu) -- cgit