From patchwork Fri Sep 17 15:30:47 2021 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Hari Bathini X-Patchwork-Id: 1529471 Return-Path: X-Original-To: patchwork-incoming@ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=BqhM08+w; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=lists.ozlabs.org (client-ip=112.213.38.117; helo=lists.ozlabs.org; envelope-from=linuxppc-dev-bounces+patchwork-incoming=ozlabs.org@lists.ozlabs.org; receiver=) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4H9ylF1ZVzz9sRN for ; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 01:38:01 +1000 (AEST) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4H9ylF0WMhz3cbc for ; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 01:38:01 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=BqhM08+w; dkim-atps=neutral X-Original-To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.156.1; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=hbathini@linux.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=BqhM08+w; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4H9ydK43Tmz3bW7 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 01:32:53 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 18HEsTM0002176; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 11:32:34 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=24qTLuGSh9luiW0lMW2NwmUEIzp+jXlKI5eNLaOcUYQ=; b=BqhM08+whgNAanP7tE16pHdq/Ad6qJpOMAO2Xkt5D+T3a8Se5YJ/2TrGQvXpKfzM+MhW AFH/h72ZdwfqvgKLAC4qslErMt0k0X2C89nygiEa9KfmQEhZ7dlSE3uZIBh6dPYt8FDR P0SyGYsmM8tjFJMdBspPq66iD7wa/CcwEEtTCWXhV7Bc/uklDbIh0pRcH3K2h58FtTf7 OmdX4O1RZrO0Cw/5d49L3vZ5K/RbQki6B2QsIXEIQJV187ys8WgcJES1OBEwE2Suxd9J ZVfZ3KwgpBGBMTvhIaDKMZMhIgG8j3FAMMV4vYKd5y8LmI4xcCwCsbimb+zyt2V97v13 Uw== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3b4tmsdchw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 17 Sep 2021 11:32:34 -0400 Received: from m0098410.ppops.net (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 18HEsXnX002386; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 11:32:33 -0400 Received: from ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (62.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.98]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3b4tmsdcgy-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 17 Sep 2021 11:32:33 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 18HFH5xs013872; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 15:32:30 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay13.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.198]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3b0m3ag7qv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 17 Sep 2021 15:32:29 +0000 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 18HFWONo29229366 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 17 Sep 2021 15:32:24 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0B7F11C04A; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 15:32:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14D1C11C05E; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 15:32:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from hbathini-workstation.ibm.com (unknown [9.43.59.213]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 15:32:19 +0000 (GMT) From: Hari Bathini To: naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net Subject: [PATCH v2 8/8] bpf ppc32: Add addr > TASK_SIZE_MAX explicit check Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 21:00:47 +0530 Message-Id: <20210917153047.177141-9-hbathini@linux.ibm.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.31.1 In-Reply-To: <20210917153047.177141-1-hbathini@linux.ibm.com> References: <20210917153047.177141-1-hbathini@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: 3kpTftO4WFO7XEHNEkf_1gnq_qNaTOYb X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: xWXdkE_cf2pXtRp1BVzkzYnYhDt8vseu X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.182.1,Aquarius:18.0.790,Hydra:6.0.391,FMLib:17.0.607.475 definitions=2021-09-17_06,2021-09-17_02,2020-04-07_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 clxscore=1015 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2109030001 definitions=main-2109170096 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: songliubraving@fb.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, john.fastabend@gmail.com, andrii@kernel.org, kpsingh@kernel.org, paulus@samba.org, yhs@fb.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kafai@fb.com, Hari Bathini Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+patchwork-incoming=ozlabs.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" With KUAP enabled, any kernel code which wants to access userspace needs to be surrounded by disable-enable KUAP. But that is not happening for BPF_PROBE_MEM load instruction. Though PPC32 does not support read protection, considering the fact that PTR_TO_BTF_ID (which uses BPF_PROBE_MEM mode) could either be a valid kernel pointer or NULL but should never be a pointer to userspace address, execute BPF_PROBE_MEM load only if addr > TASK_SIZE_MAX, otherwise set dst_reg=0 and move on. This will catch NULL, valid or invalid userspace pointers. Only bad kernel pointer will be handled by BPF exception table. [Alexei suggested for x86] Suggested-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Hari Bathini --- Changes in v2: * New patch to handle bad userspace pointers on PPC32. arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+) diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c index c6262289dcc4..faa8047fcf4a 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c @@ -821,6 +821,45 @@ int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32 *image, struct codegen_context * /* dst = *(u64 *)(ul) (src + off) */ case BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM | BPF_DW: case BPF_LDX | BPF_PROBE_MEM | BPF_DW: + /* + * As PTR_TO_BTF_ID that uses BPF_PROBE_MEM mode could either be a valid + * kernel pointer or NULL but not a userspace address, execute BPF_PROBE_MEM + * load only if addr > TASK_SIZE_MAX, otherwise set dst_reg=0 and move on. + */ + if (BPF_MODE(code) == BPF_PROBE_MEM) { + bool extra_insn_needed = false; + unsigned int adjusted_idx; + + /* + * For BPF_DW case, "li reg_h,0" would be needed when + * !fp->aux->verifier_zext. Adjust conditional branch'ing + * address accordingly. + */ + if ((size == BPF_DW) && !fp->aux->verifier_zext) + extra_insn_needed = true; + + /* + * Need to jump two instructions instead of one for BPF_DW case + * as there are two load instructions for dst_reg_h & dst_reg + * respectively. + */ + adjusted_idx = (size == BPF_DW) ? 1 : 0; + + EMIT(PPC_RAW_ADDI(b2p[TMP_REG], src_reg, off)); + PPC_LI32(_R0, TASK_SIZE_MAX); + EMIT(PPC_RAW_CMPLW(b2p[TMP_REG], _R0)); + PPC_BCC(COND_GT, (ctx->idx + 4 + (extra_insn_needed ? 1 : 0)) * 4); + EMIT(PPC_RAW_LI(dst_reg, 0)); + /* + * Note that "li reg_h,0" is emitted for BPF_B/H/W case, + * if necessary. So, jump there insted of emitting an + * additional "li reg_h,0" instruction. + */ + if (extra_insn_needed) + EMIT(PPC_RAW_LI(dst_reg_h, 0)); + PPC_JMP((ctx->idx + 2 + adjusted_idx) * 4); + } + switch (size) { case BPF_B: EMIT(PPC_RAW_LBZ(dst_reg, src_reg, off));