mirror of
https://github.com/torvalds/linux.git
synced 2025-11-04 18:49:34 +02:00
bpf, arm64: fix out of bounds access in tail call
I recently noticed a crash on arm64 when feeding a bogus index into BPF tail call helper. The crash would not occur when the interpreter is used, but only in case of JIT. Output looks as follows: [ 347.007486] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address fffb850e96492510 [...] [ 347.043065] [fffb850e96492510] address between user and kernel address ranges [ 347.050205] Internal error: Oops: 96000004 [#1] SMP [...] [ 347.190829] x13: 0000000000000000 x12: 0000000000000000 [ 347.196128] x11: fffc047ebe782800 x10: ffff808fd7d0fd10 [ 347.201427] x9 : 0000000000000000 x8 : 0000000000000000 [ 347.206726] x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : 001c991738000000 [ 347.212025] x5 : 0000000000000018 x4 : 000000000000ba5a [ 347.217325] x3 : 00000000000329c4 x2 : ffff808fd7cf0500 [ 347.222625] x1 : ffff808fd7d0fc00 x0 : ffff808fd7cf0500 [ 347.227926] Process test_verifier (pid: 4548, stack limit = 0x000000007467fa61) [ 347.235221] Call trace: [ 347.237656] 0xffff000002f3a4fc [ 347.240784] bpf_test_run+0x78/0xf8 [ 347.244260] bpf_prog_test_run_skb+0x148/0x230 [ 347.248694] SyS_bpf+0x77c/0x1110 [ 347.251999] el0_svc_naked+0x30/0x34 [ 347.255564] Code: 9100075a d280220a 8b0a002a d37df04b (f86b694b) [...] In this case the index used in BPF r3 is the same as in r1 at the time of the call, meaning we fed a pointer as index; here, it had the value 0xffff808fd7cf0500 which sits in x2. While I found tail calls to be working in general (also for hitting the error cases), I noticed the following in the code emission: # bpftool p d j i 988 [...] 38: ldr w10, [x1,x10] 3c: cmp w2, w10 40: b.ge 0x000000000000007c <-- signed cmp 44: mov x10, #0x20 // #32 48: cmp x26, x10 4c: b.gt 0x000000000000007c 50: add x26, x26, #0x1 54: mov x10, #0x110 // #272 58: add x10, x1, x10 5c: lsl x11, x2, #3 60: ldr x11, [x10,x11] <-- faulting insn (f86b694b) 64: cbz x11, 0x000000000000007c [...] Meaning, the tests passed because commitddb55992b0("arm64: bpf: implement bpf_tail_call() helper") was using signed compares instead of unsigned which as a result had the test wrongly passing. Change this but also the tail call count test both into unsigned and cap the index as u32. Latter we did as well in90caccdd8c("bpf: fix bpf_tail_call() x64 JIT") and is needed in addition here, too. Tested on HiSilicon Hi1616. Result after patch: # bpftool p d j i 268 [...] 38: ldr w10, [x1,x10] 3c: add w2, w2, #0x0 40: cmp w2, w10 44: b.cs 0x0000000000000080 48: mov x10, #0x20 // #32 4c: cmp x26, x10 50: b.hi 0x0000000000000080 54: add x26, x26, #0x1 58: mov x10, #0x110 // #272 5c: add x10, x1, x10 60: lsl x11, x2, #3 64: ldr x11, [x10,x11] 68: cbz x11, 0x0000000000000080 [...] Fixes:ddb55992b0("arm64: bpf: implement bpf_tail_call() helper") Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
a493a87f38
commit
16338a9b3a
2 changed files with 29 additions and 2 deletions
|
|
@ -250,8 +250,9 @@ static int emit_bpf_tail_call(struct jit_ctx *ctx)
|
|||
off = offsetof(struct bpf_array, map.max_entries);
|
||||
emit_a64_mov_i64(tmp, off, ctx);
|
||||
emit(A64_LDR32(tmp, r2, tmp), ctx);
|
||||
emit(A64_MOV(0, r3, r3), ctx);
|
||||
emit(A64_CMP(0, r3, tmp), ctx);
|
||||
emit(A64_B_(A64_COND_GE, jmp_offset), ctx);
|
||||
emit(A64_B_(A64_COND_CS, jmp_offset), ctx);
|
||||
|
||||
/* if (tail_call_cnt > MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT)
|
||||
* goto out;
|
||||
|
|
@ -259,7 +260,7 @@ static int emit_bpf_tail_call(struct jit_ctx *ctx)
|
|||
*/
|
||||
emit_a64_mov_i64(tmp, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT, ctx);
|
||||
emit(A64_CMP(1, tcc, tmp), ctx);
|
||||
emit(A64_B_(A64_COND_GT, jmp_offset), ctx);
|
||||
emit(A64_B_(A64_COND_HI, jmp_offset), ctx);
|
||||
emit(A64_ADD_I(1, tcc, tcc, 1), ctx);
|
||||
|
||||
/* prog = array->ptrs[index];
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -2586,6 +2586,32 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
|
|||
.result_unpriv = REJECT,
|
||||
.result = ACCEPT,
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"runtime/jit: pass negative index to tail_call",
|
||||
.insns = {
|
||||
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, -1),
|
||||
BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_2, 0),
|
||||
BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
|
||||
BPF_FUNC_tail_call),
|
||||
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
|
||||
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
|
||||
},
|
||||
.fixup_prog = { 1 },
|
||||
.result = ACCEPT,
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"runtime/jit: pass > 32bit index to tail_call",
|
||||
.insns = {
|
||||
BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_3, 0x100000000ULL),
|
||||
BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_2, 0),
|
||||
BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
|
||||
BPF_FUNC_tail_call),
|
||||
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
|
||||
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
|
||||
},
|
||||
.fixup_prog = { 2 },
|
||||
.result = ACCEPT,
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"stack pointer arithmetic",
|
||||
.insns = {
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue