lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[PATCH 4.16 110/110] bpf: Prevent memory disambiguation attack
Date
4.16-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>

commit af86ca4e3088fe5eacf2f7e58c01fa68ca067672 upstream

Detect code patterns where malicious 'speculative store bypass' can be used
and sanitize such patterns.

39: (bf) r3 = r10
40: (07) r3 += -216
41: (79) r8 = *(u64 *)(r7 +0) // slow read
42: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -72) = 0 // verifier inserts this instruction
43: (7b) *(u64 *)(r8 +0) = r3 // this store becomes slow due to r8
44: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r6 +0) // cpu speculatively executes this load
45: (71) r2 = *(u8 *)(r1 +0) // speculatively arbitrary 'load byte'
// is now sanitized

Above code after x86 JIT becomes:
e5: mov %rbp,%rdx
e8: add $0xffffffffffffff28,%rdx
ef: mov 0x0(%r13),%r14
f3: movq $0x0,-0x48(%rbp)
fb: mov %rdx,0x0(%r14)
ff: mov 0x0(%rbx),%rdi
103: movzbq 0x0(%rdi),%rsi

Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
include/linux/bpf_verifier.h | 1
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
2 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
+++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
@@ -146,6 +146,7 @@ struct bpf_insn_aux_data {
s32 call_imm; /* saved imm field of call insn */
};
int ctx_field_size; /* the ctx field size for load insn, maybe 0 */
+ int sanitize_stack_off; /* stack slot to be cleared */
bool seen; /* this insn was processed by the verifier */
};

--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -970,7 +970,7 @@ static bool register_is_null(struct bpf_
*/
static int check_stack_write(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
struct bpf_func_state *state, /* func where register points to */
- int off, int size, int value_regno)
+ int off, int size, int value_regno, int insn_idx)
{
struct bpf_func_state *cur; /* state of the current function */
int i, slot = -off - 1, spi = slot / BPF_REG_SIZE, err;
@@ -1009,8 +1009,33 @@ static int check_stack_write(struct bpf_
state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr = cur->regs[value_regno];
state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr.live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN;

- for (i = 0; i < BPF_REG_SIZE; i++)
+ for (i = 0; i < BPF_REG_SIZE; i++) {
+ if (state->stack[spi].slot_type[i] == STACK_MISC &&
+ !env->allow_ptr_leaks) {
+ int *poff = &env->insn_aux_data[insn_idx].sanitize_stack_off;
+ int soff = (-spi - 1) * BPF_REG_SIZE;
+
+ /* detected reuse of integer stack slot with a pointer
+ * which means either llvm is reusing stack slot or
+ * an attacker is trying to exploit CVE-2018-3639
+ * (speculative store bypass)
+ * Have to sanitize that slot with preemptive
+ * store of zero.
+ */
+ if (*poff && *poff != soff) {
+ /* disallow programs where single insn stores
+ * into two different stack slots, since verifier
+ * cannot sanitize them
+ */
+ verbose(env,
+ "insn %d cannot access two stack slots fp%d and fp%d",
+ insn_idx, *poff, soff);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+ *poff = soff;
+ }
state->stack[spi].slot_type[i] = STACK_SPILL;
+ }
} else {
u8 type = STACK_MISC;

@@ -1685,7 +1710,7 @@ static int check_mem_access(struct bpf_v

if (t == BPF_WRITE)
err = check_stack_write(env, state, off, size,
- value_regno);
+ value_regno, insn_idx);
else
err = check_stack_read(env, state, off, size,
value_regno);
@@ -5156,6 +5181,34 @@ static int convert_ctx_accesses(struct b
else
continue;

+ if (type == BPF_WRITE &&
+ env->insn_aux_data[i + delta].sanitize_stack_off) {
+ struct bpf_insn patch[] = {
+ /* Sanitize suspicious stack slot with zero.
+ * There are no memory dependencies for this store,
+ * since it's only using frame pointer and immediate
+ * constant of zero
+ */
+ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_FP,
+ env->insn_aux_data[i + delta].sanitize_stack_off,
+ 0),
+ /* the original STX instruction will immediately
+ * overwrite the same stack slot with appropriate value
+ */
+ *insn,
+ };
+
+ cnt = ARRAY_SIZE(patch);
+ new_prog = bpf_patch_insn_data(env, i + delta, patch, cnt);
+ if (!new_prog)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ delta += cnt - 1;
+ env->prog = new_prog;
+ insn = new_prog->insnsi + i + delta;
+ continue;
+ }
+
if (env->insn_aux_data[i + delta].ptr_type != PTR_TO_CTX)
continue;


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-21 23:30    [W:0.393 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site