diff mbox series

[bpf-next,2/3] bpf: Sanitize LDX in jited BPF progs with KASAN

Message ID 20221123141546.238297-3-sunhao.th@gmail.com (mailing list archive)
State Superseded
Delegated to: BPF
Headers show
Series bpf: Add LDX/STX/ST sanitize in jited BPF progs | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-PR success PR summary
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-21 fail Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-26 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-16 fail Logs for test_progs on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-31 success Logs for test_progs_parallel on s390x with gcc
netdev/tree_selection success Clearly marked for bpf-next, async
netdev/fixes_present success Fixes tag not required for -next series
netdev/subject_prefix success Link
netdev/cover_letter success Series has a cover letter
netdev/patch_count success Link
netdev/header_inline success No static functions without inline keyword in header files
netdev/build_32bit success Errors and warnings before: 1400 this patch: 1400
netdev/cc_maintainers warning 9 maintainers not CCed: dave.hansen@linux.intel.com netdev@vger.kernel.org hpa@zytor.com mingo@redhat.com tglx@linutronix.de bp@alien8.de dsahern@kernel.org yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org x86@kernel.org
netdev/build_clang success Errors and warnings before: 168 this patch: 168
netdev/module_param success Was 0 now: 0
netdev/verify_signedoff success Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer
netdev/check_selftest success No net selftest shell script
netdev/verify_fixes success No Fixes tag
netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn success Errors and warnings before: 1390 this patch: 1390
netdev/checkpatch warning CHECK: multiple assignments should be avoided CHECK: spaces preferred around that '*' (ctx:WxV) WARNING: line length of 83 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 86 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 87 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 88 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 89 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 91 exceeds 80 columns
netdev/kdoc success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/source_inline success Was 0 now: 0
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-11 success Logs for test_maps on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-1 success Logs for ShellCheck
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-7 success Logs for llvm-toolchain
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-8 success Logs for set-matrix
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-2 success Logs for build for aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-3 success Logs for build for aarch64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-5 success Logs for build for x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-6 success Logs for build for x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-4 success Logs for build for s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-9 success Logs for test_maps on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-12 success Logs for test_maps on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-13 success Logs for test_maps on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-15 success Logs for test_progs on aarch64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-17 success Logs for test_progs on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-18 success Logs for test_progs on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-19 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-20 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on aarch64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-22 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-23 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-24 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-27 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-28 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-29 success Logs for test_progs_parallel on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-32 success Logs for test_progs_parallel on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-33 success Logs for test_progs_parallel on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-34 success Logs for test_verifier on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-37 success Logs for test_verifier on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-38 success Logs for test_verifier on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-10 success Logs for test_maps on aarch64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-14 fail Logs for test_progs on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-25 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on aarch64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-30 success Logs for test_progs_parallel on aarch64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-35 success Logs for test_verifier on aarch64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-36 success Logs for test_verifier on s390x with gcc

Commit Message

Hao Sun Nov. 23, 2022, 2:15 p.m. UTC
Make the verifier sanitize LDX insns in jited BPF programs, a little
more complicated than STX/ST. The dst_reg and AX are free here,
different insns that backup R0&R1 are inserted before calling the
checking functions based on their relationships with dst_reg and
src_reg, the checking funcs are then inserted, and finally regs
are restored.

Signed-off-by: Hao Sun <sunhao.th@gmail.com>
---
 arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c |  4 +-
 include/linux/bpf.h         |  5 +++
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c       | 88 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 96 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index ceaef69adc49..0fc67383ffa8 100644
--- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -343,7 +343,9 @@  static int emit_call(u8 **pprog, void *func, void *ip)
 	u8 *prog = *pprog;
 	bool is_sanitize =
 		func == bpf_asan_store8 || func == bpf_asan_store16 ||
-		func == bpf_asan_store32 || func == bpf_asan_store64;
+		func == bpf_asan_store32 || func == bpf_asan_store64 ||
+		func == bpf_asan_load8 || func == bpf_asan_load16 ||
+		func == bpf_asan_load32 || func == bpf_asan_load64;
 
 	if (!is_sanitize)
 		return emit_patch(pprog, func, ip, 0xE8);
diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
index a7eb99928fee..350d890a39ac 100644
--- a/include/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
@@ -2842,6 +2842,11 @@  u64 bpf_asan_store16(u16 *addr);
 u64 bpf_asan_store32(u32 *addr);
 u64 bpf_asan_store64(u64 *addr);
 
+u64 bpf_asan_load8(u8 *addr);
+u64 bpf_asan_load16(u16 *addr);
+u64 bpf_asan_load32(u32 *addr);
+u64 bpf_asan_load64(u64 *addr);
+
 #endif /* CONFIG_BPF_PROG_KASAN */
 
 #endif /* _LINUX_BPF_H */
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index af214f0191e0..c0c11d24dc7b 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -15238,6 +15238,17 @@  BPF_ASAN_STORE(16);
 BPF_ASAN_STORE(32);
 BPF_ASAN_STORE(64);
 
+#define BPF_ASAN_LOAD(n)                         \
+	notrace u64 bpf_asan_load##n(u##n *addr) \
+	{                                        \
+		return *addr;                    \
+	}
+
+BPF_ASAN_LOAD(8);
+BPF_ASAN_LOAD(16);
+BPF_ASAN_LOAD(32);
+BPF_ASAN_LOAD(64);
+
 #endif
 
 /* Do various post-verification rewrites in a single program pass.
@@ -15454,6 +15465,83 @@  static int do_misc_fixups(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 			insn = new_prog->insnsi + i + delta;
 			continue;
 		}
+
+		/* Sanitize LDX operation*/
+		if (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_LDX) {
+			struct bpf_insn sanitize_fn;
+			struct bpf_insn *patch = &insn_buf[0];
+			bool dst_is_r0 = insn->dst_reg == BPF_REG_0;
+			bool dst_is_r1 = insn->dst_reg == BPF_REG_1;
+
+			if (in_patch_use_ax || insn->src_reg == BPF_REG_10)
+				continue;
+
+			switch (BPF_SIZE(insn->code)) {
+			case BPF_B:
+				sanitize_fn = BPF_EMIT_CALL(bpf_asan_load8);
+				break;
+			case BPF_H:
+				sanitize_fn = BPF_EMIT_CALL(bpf_asan_load16);
+				break;
+			case BPF_W:
+				sanitize_fn = BPF_EMIT_CALL(bpf_asan_load32);
+				break;
+			case BPF_DW:
+				sanitize_fn = BPF_EMIT_CALL(bpf_asan_load64);
+				break;
+			}
+
+			/* Backup R0 and R1, REG_AX and dst_reg are free. */
+			if (insn->src_reg == BPF_REG_1) {
+				if (!dst_is_r0)
+					*patch++ = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_AX, BPF_REG_0);
+			} else if (insn->src_reg == BPF_REG_0) {
+				if (!dst_is_r1)
+					*patch++ = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_AX, BPF_REG_1);
+				*patch++ = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0);
+			} else if (!dst_is_r1) {
+				*patch++ = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_AX, BPF_REG_1);
+				*patch++ = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, insn->src_reg);
+				if (!dst_is_r0)
+					*patch++ = BPF_MOV64_REG(insn->dst_reg, BPF_REG_0);
+			} else {
+				*patch++ = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, insn->src_reg);
+				*patch++ = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_AX, BPF_REG_0);
+			}
+			if (insn->off != 0)
+				*patch++ = BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, insn->off);
+			/* Invoke sanitize fn, R1~R5 are stored to stack during jit. */
+			*patch++ = sanitize_fn;
+			if (insn->off != 0)
+				*patch++ = BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -insn->off);
+			if (insn->src_reg == BPF_REG_1) {
+				if (!dst_is_r0)
+					*patch++ = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_AX);
+			} else if (insn->src_reg == BPF_REG_0) {
+				*patch++ = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1);
+				if (!dst_is_r1)
+					*patch++ = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_AX);
+			} else if (!dst_is_r1) {
+				if (!dst_is_r0)
+					*patch++ = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, insn->dst_reg);
+				if (insn->src_reg == insn->dst_reg)
+					*patch++ = BPF_MOV64_REG(insn->src_reg, BPF_REG_1);
+				*patch++ = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_AX);
+			} else {
+				*patch++ = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_AX);
+			}
+			*patch++ = *insn;
+			cnt = patch - insn_buf;
+
+			new_prog = bpf_patch_insn_data(env, i + delta, insn_buf, cnt);
+			if (!new_prog)
+				return -ENOMEM;
+
+			delta += cnt - 1;
+			env->prog = prog = new_prog;
+			insn = new_prog->insnsi + i + delta;
+			continue;
+		}
 #endif
 
 		if (insn->code != (BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL))