From: Alexei Starovoitov Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 07:17:02 +0000 (-0700) Subject: bpf: verifier (add docs) X-Git-Url: https://git.stricted.de/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=51580e798cb61b0fc63fa3aa6c5c975375aa0550;p=GitHub%2FLineageOS%2FG12%2Fandroid_kernel_amlogic_linux-4.9.git bpf: verifier (add docs) this patch adds all of eBPF verfier documentation and empty bpf_check() The end goal for the verifier is to statically check safety of the program. Verifier will catch: - loops - out of range jumps - unreachable instructions - invalid instructions - uninitialized register access - uninitialized stack access - misaligned stack access - out of range stack access - invalid calling convention More details in Documentation/networking/filter.txt Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: David S. Miller --- diff --git a/Documentation/networking/filter.txt b/Documentation/networking/filter.txt index 4a01d71785e9..5ce4d07406a5 100644 --- a/Documentation/networking/filter.txt +++ b/Documentation/networking/filter.txt @@ -1001,6 +1001,99 @@ instruction that loads 64-bit immediate value into a dst_reg. Classic BPF has similar instruction: BPF_LD | BPF_W | BPF_IMM which loads 32-bit immediate value into a register. +eBPF verifier +------------- +The safety of the eBPF program is determined in two steps. + +First step does DAG check to disallow loops and other CFG validation. +In particular it will detect programs that have unreachable instructions. +(though classic BPF checker allows them) + +Second step starts from the first insn and descends all possible paths. +It simulates execution of every insn and observes the state change of +registers and stack. + +At the start of the program the register R1 contains a pointer to context +and has type PTR_TO_CTX. +If verifier sees an insn that does R2=R1, then R2 has now type +PTR_TO_CTX as well and can be used on the right hand side of expression. +If R1=PTR_TO_CTX and insn is R2=R1+R1, then R2=UNKNOWN_VALUE, +since addition of two valid pointers makes invalid pointer. +(In 'secure' mode verifier will reject any type of pointer arithmetic to make +sure that kernel addresses don't leak to unprivileged users) + +If register was never written to, it's not readable: + bpf_mov R0 = R2 + bpf_exit +will be rejected, since R2 is unreadable at the start of the program. + +After kernel function call, R1-R5 are reset to unreadable and +R0 has a return type of the function. + +Since R6-R9 are callee saved, their state is preserved across the call. + bpf_mov R6 = 1 + bpf_call foo + bpf_mov R0 = R6 + bpf_exit +is a correct program. If there was R1 instead of R6, it would have +been rejected. + +load/store instructions are allowed only with registers of valid types, which +are PTR_TO_CTX, PTR_TO_MAP, FRAME_PTR. They are bounds and alignment checked. +For example: + bpf_mov R1 = 1 + bpf_mov R2 = 2 + bpf_xadd *(u32 *)(R1 + 3) += R2 + bpf_exit +will be rejected, since R1 doesn't have a valid pointer type at the time of +execution of instruction bpf_xadd. + +At the start R1 type is PTR_TO_CTX (a pointer to generic 'struct bpf_context') +A callback is used to customize verifier to restrict eBPF program access to only +certain fields within ctx structure with specified size and alignment. + +For example, the following insn: + bpf_ld R0 = *(u32 *)(R6 + 8) +intends to load a word from address R6 + 8 and store it into R0 +If R6=PTR_TO_CTX, via is_valid_access() callback the verifier will know +that offset 8 of size 4 bytes can be accessed for reading, otherwise +the verifier will reject the program. +If R6=FRAME_PTR, then access should be aligned and be within +stack bounds, which are [-MAX_BPF_STACK, 0). In this example offset is 8, +so it will fail verification, since it's out of bounds. + +The verifier will allow eBPF program to read data from stack only after +it wrote into it. +Classic BPF verifier does similar check with M[0-15] memory slots. +For example: + bpf_ld R0 = *(u32 *)(R10 - 4) + bpf_exit +is invalid program. +Though R10 is correct read-only register and has type FRAME_PTR +and R10 - 4 is within stack bounds, there were no stores into that location. + +Pointer register spill/fill is tracked as well, since four (R6-R9) +callee saved registers may not be enough for some programs. + +Allowed function calls are customized with bpf_verifier_ops->get_func_proto() +The eBPF verifier will check that registers match argument constraints. +After the call register R0 will be set to return type of the function. + +Function calls is a main mechanism to extend functionality of eBPF programs. +Socket filters may let programs to call one set of functions, whereas tracing +filters may allow completely different set. + +If a function made accessible to eBPF program, it needs to be thought through +from safety point of view. The verifier will guarantee that the function is +called with valid arguments. + +seccomp vs socket filters have different security restrictions for classic BPF. +Seccomp solves this by two stage verifier: classic BPF verifier is followed +by seccomp verifier. In case of eBPF one configurable verifier is shared for +all use cases. + +See details of eBPF verifier in kernel/bpf/verifier.c + eBPF maps --------- 'maps' is a generic storage of different types for sharing data between kernel @@ -1040,6 +1133,137 @@ The map is defined by: . key size in bytes . value size in bytes +Understanding eBPF verifier messages +------------------------------------ + +The following are few examples of invalid eBPF programs and verifier error +messages as seen in the log: + +Program with unreachable instructions: +static struct bpf_insn prog[] = { + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), +}; +Error: + unreachable insn 1 + +Program that reads uninitialized register: + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), +Error: + 0: (bf) r0 = r2 + R2 !read_ok + +Program that doesn't initialize R0 before exiting: + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), +Error: + 0: (bf) r2 = r1 + 1: (95) exit + R0 !read_ok + +Program that accesses stack out of bounds: + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, 8, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), +Error: + 0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 +8) = 0 + invalid stack off=8 size=8 + +Program that doesn't initialize stack before passing its address into function: + 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_EXIT_INSN(), +Error: + 0: (bf) r2 = r10 + 1: (07) r2 += -8 + 2: (b7) r1 = 0x0 + 3: (85) call 1 + invalid indirect read from stack off -8+0 size 8 + +Program that uses invalid map_fd=0 while calling to map_lookup_elem() function: + 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_EXIT_INSN(), +Error: + 0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 + 1: (bf) r2 = r10 + 2: (07) r2 += -8 + 3: (b7) r1 = 0x0 + 4: (85) call 1 + fd 0 is not pointing to valid bpf_map + +Program that doesn't check return value of map_lookup_elem() before accessing +map element: + 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_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, 0, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), +Error: + 0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 + 1: (bf) r2 = r10 + 2: (07) r2 += -8 + 3: (b7) r1 = 0x0 + 4: (85) call 1 + 5: (7a) *(u64 *)(r0 +0) = 0 + R0 invalid mem access 'map_value_or_null' + +Program that correctly checks map_lookup_elem() returned value for NULL, but +accesses the memory with incorrect alignment: + 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, 1), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, 4, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), +Error: + 0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 + 1: (bf) r2 = r10 + 2: (07) r2 += -8 + 3: (b7) r1 = 1 + 4: (85) call 1 + 5: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+1 + R0=map_ptr R10=fp + 6: (7a) *(u64 *)(r0 +4) = 0 + misaligned access off 4 size 8 + +Program that correctly checks map_lookup_elem() returned value for NULL and +accesses memory with correct alignment in one side of 'if' branch, but fails +to do so in the other side of 'if' branch: + 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, 2), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, 0, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), +Error: + 0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 + 1: (bf) r2 = r10 + 2: (07) r2 += -8 + 3: (b7) r1 = 1 + 4: (85) call 1 + 5: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 + R0=map_ptr R10=fp + 6: (7a) *(u64 *)(r0 +0) = 0 + 7: (95) exit + + from 5 to 8: R0=imm0 R10=fp + 8: (7a) *(u64 *)(r0 +0) = 1 + R0 invalid mem access 'imm' + Testing ------- diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h index 92979182be81..9dfeb36f8971 100644 --- a/include/linux/bpf.h +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h @@ -83,5 +83,7 @@ struct bpf_prog_aux { void bpf_prog_put(struct bpf_prog *prog); struct bpf_prog *bpf_prog_get(u32 ufd); +/* verify correctness of eBPF program */ +int bpf_check(struct bpf_prog *fp, union bpf_attr *attr); #endif /* _LINUX_BPF_H */ diff --git a/kernel/bpf/Makefile b/kernel/bpf/Makefile index e9f7334ed07a..3c726b0995b7 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/Makefile +++ b/kernel/bpf/Makefile @@ -1 +1 @@ -obj-y := core.o syscall.o +obj-y := core.o syscall.o verifier.o diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c index b513659d120f..74b3628c5fdb 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c @@ -507,7 +507,7 @@ static int bpf_prog_load(union bpf_attr *attr) goto free_prog; /* run eBPF verifier */ - /* err = bpf_check(prog, tb); */ + err = bpf_check(prog, attr); if (err < 0) goto free_used_maps; diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..d6f9c3d6b4d7 --- /dev/null +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -0,0 +1,133 @@ +/* Copyright (c) 2011-2014 PLUMgrid, http://plumgrid.com + * + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or + * modify it under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public + * License as published by the Free Software Foundation. + * + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but + * WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU + * General Public License for more details. + */ +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include + +/* bpf_check() is a static code analyzer that walks eBPF program + * instruction by instruction and updates register/stack state. + * All paths of conditional branches are analyzed until 'bpf_exit' insn. + * + * The first pass is depth-first-search to check that the program is a DAG. + * It rejects the following programs: + * - larger than BPF_MAXINSNS insns + * - if loop is present (detected via back-edge) + * - unreachable insns exist (shouldn't be a forest. program = one function) + * - out of bounds or malformed jumps + * The second pass is all possible path descent from the 1st insn. + * Since it's analyzing all pathes through the program, the length of the + * analysis is limited to 32k insn, which may be hit even if total number of + * insn is less then 4K, but there are too many branches that change stack/regs. + * Number of 'branches to be analyzed' is limited to 1k + * + * On entry to each instruction, each register has a type, and the instruction + * changes the types of the registers depending on instruction semantics. + * If instruction is BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_5), then type of R5 is + * copied to R1. + * + * All registers are 64-bit. + * R0 - return register + * R1-R5 argument passing registers + * R6-R9 callee saved registers + * R10 - frame pointer read-only + * + * At the start of BPF program the register R1 contains a pointer to bpf_context + * and has type PTR_TO_CTX. + * + * Verifier tracks arithmetic operations on pointers in case: + * BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10), + * BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -20), + * 1st insn copies R10 (which has FRAME_PTR) type into R1 + * and 2nd arithmetic instruction is pattern matched to recognize + * that it wants to construct a pointer to some element within stack. + * So after 2nd insn, the register R1 has type PTR_TO_STACK + * (and -20 constant is saved for further stack bounds checking). + * Meaning that this reg is a pointer to stack plus known immediate constant. + * + * Most of the time the registers have UNKNOWN_VALUE type, which + * means the register has some value, but it's not a valid pointer. + * (like pointer plus pointer becomes UNKNOWN_VALUE type) + * + * When verifier sees load or store instructions the type of base register + * can be: PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE, PTR_TO_CTX, FRAME_PTR. These are three pointer + * types recognized by check_mem_access() function. + * + * PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE means that this register is pointing to 'map element value' + * and the range of [ptr, ptr + map's value_size) is accessible. + * + * registers used to pass values to function calls are checked against + * function argument constraints. + * + * ARG_PTR_TO_MAP_KEY is one of such argument constraints. + * It means that the register type passed to this function must be + * PTR_TO_STACK and it will be used inside the function as + * 'pointer to map element key' + * + * For example the argument constraints for bpf_map_lookup_elem(): + * .ret_type = RET_PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL, + * .arg1_type = ARG_CONST_MAP_PTR, + * .arg2_type = ARG_PTR_TO_MAP_KEY, + * + * ret_type says that this function returns 'pointer to map elem value or null' + * function expects 1st argument to be a const pointer to 'struct bpf_map' and + * 2nd argument should be a pointer to stack, which will be used inside + * the helper function as a pointer to map element key. + * + * On the kernel side the helper function looks like: + * u64 bpf_map_lookup_elem(u64 r1, u64 r2, u64 r3, u64 r4, u64 r5) + * { + * struct bpf_map *map = (struct bpf_map *) (unsigned long) r1; + * void *key = (void *) (unsigned long) r2; + * void *value; + * + * here kernel can access 'key' and 'map' pointers safely, knowing that + * [key, key + map->key_size) bytes are valid and were initialized on + * the stack of eBPF program. + * } + * + * Corresponding eBPF program may look like: + * BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10), // after this insn R2 type is FRAME_PTR + * BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -4), // after this insn R2 type is PTR_TO_STACK + * BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, map_fd), // after this insn R1 type is CONST_PTR_TO_MAP + * BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), + * here verifier looks at prototype of map_lookup_elem() and sees: + * .arg1_type == ARG_CONST_MAP_PTR and R1->type == CONST_PTR_TO_MAP, which is ok, + * Now verifier knows that this map has key of R1->map_ptr->key_size bytes + * + * Then .arg2_type == ARG_PTR_TO_MAP_KEY and R2->type == PTR_TO_STACK, ok so far, + * Now verifier checks that [R2, R2 + map's key_size) are within stack limits + * and were initialized prior to this call. + * If it's ok, then verifier allows this BPF_CALL insn and looks at + * .ret_type which is RET_PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL, so it sets + * R0->type = PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL which means bpf_map_lookup_elem() function + * returns ether pointer to map value or NULL. + * + * When type PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL passes through 'if (reg != 0) goto +off' + * insn, the register holding that pointer in the true branch changes state to + * PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE and the same register changes state to CONST_IMM in the false + * branch. See check_cond_jmp_op(). + * + * After the call R0 is set to return type of the function and registers R1-R5 + * are set to NOT_INIT to indicate that they are no longer readable. + */ + +int bpf_check(struct bpf_prog *prog, union bpf_attr *attr) +{ + int ret = -EINVAL; + + return ret; +}