On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 8:08 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 07:28:38PM +0900, Masami Ichikawa wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 9:03 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 09:12:37PM +0900, Masami Ichikawa wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 9:05 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 08:58:10PM +0900, Masami Ichikawa(CIP) wrote:
> > > > > > From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > commit 353050be4c19e102178ccc05988101887c25ae53 upstream
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Commit a23740ec43ba ("bpf: Track contents of read-only maps as scalars") is
> > > > > > checking whether maps are read-only both from BPF program side and user space
> > > > > > side, and then, given their content is constant, reading out their data via
> > > > > > map->ops->map_direct_value_addr() which is then subsequently used as known
> > > > > > scalar value for the register, that is, it is marked as __mark_reg_known()
> > > > > > with the read value at verification time. Before a23740ec43ba, the register
> > > > > > content was marked as an unknown scalar so the verifier could not make any
> > > > > > assumptions about the map content.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The current implementation however is prone to a TOCTOU race, meaning, the
> > > > > > value read as known scalar for the register is not guaranteed to be exactly
> > > > > > the same at a later point when the program is executed, and as such, the
> > > > > > prior made assumptions of the verifier with regards to the program will be
> > > > > > invalid which can cause issues such as OOB access, etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While the BPF_F_RDONLY_PROG map flag is always fixed and required to be
> > > > > > specified at map creation time, the map->frozen property is initially set to
> > > > > > false for the map given the map value needs to be populated, e.g. for global
> > > > > > data sections. Once complete, the loader "freezes" the map from user space
> > > > > > such that no subsequent updates/deletes are possible anymore. For the rest
> > > > > > of the lifetime of the map, this freeze one-time trigger cannot be undone
> > > > > > anymore after a successful BPF_MAP_FREEZE cmd return. Meaning, any new BPF_*
> > > > > > cmd calls which would update/delete map entries will be rejected with -EPERM
> > > > > > since map_get_sys_perms() removes the FMODE_CAN_WRITE permission. This also
> > > > > > means that pending update/delete map entries must still complete before this
> > > > > > guarantee is given. This corner case is not an issue for loaders since they
> > > > > > create and prepare such program private map in successive steps.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, a malicious user is able to trigger this TOCTOU race in two different
> > > > > > ways: i) via userfaultfd, and ii) via batched updates. For i) userfaultfd is
> > > > > > used to expand the competition interval, so that map_update_elem() can modify
> > > > > > the contents of the map after map_freeze() and bpf_prog_load() were executed.
> > > > > > This works, because userfaultfd halts the parallel thread which triggered a
> > > > > > map_update_elem() at the time where we copy key/value from the user buffer and
> > > > > > this already passed the FMODE_CAN_WRITE capability test given at that time the
> > > > > > map was not "frozen". Then, the main thread performs the map_freeze() and
> > > > > > bpf_prog_load(), and once that had completed successfully, the other thread
> > > > > > is woken up to complete the pending map_update_elem() which then changes the
> > > > > > map content. For ii) the idea of the batched update is similar, meaning, when
> > > > > > there are a large number of updates to be processed, it can increase the
> > > > > > competition interval between the two. It is therefore possible in practice to
> > > > > > modify the contents of the map after executing map_freeze() and bpf_prog_load().
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One way to fix both i) and ii) at the same time is to expand the use of the
> > > > > > map's map->writecnt. The latter was introduced in fc9702273e2e ("bpf: Add mmap()
> > > > > > support for BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARRAY") and further refined in 1f6cb19be2e2 ("bpf:
> > > > > > Prevent re-mmap()'ing BPF map as writable for initially r/o mapping") with
> > > > > > the rationale to make a writable mmap()'ing of a map mutually exclusive with
> > > > > > read-only freezing. The counter indicates writable mmap() mappings and then
> > > > > > prevents/fails the freeze operation. Its semantics can be expanded beyond
> > > > > > just mmap() by generally indicating ongoing write phases. This would essentially
> > > > > > span any parallel regular and batched flavor of update/delete operation and
> > > > > > then also have map_freeze() fail with -EBUSY. For the check_mem_access() in
> > > > > > the verifier we expand upon the bpf_map_is_rdonly() check ensuring that all
> > > > > > last pending writes have completed via bpf_map_write_active() test. Once the
> > > > > > map->frozen is set and bpf_map_write_active() indicates a map->writecnt of 0
> > > > > > only then we are really guaranteed to use the map's data as known constants.
> > > > > > For map->frozen being set and pending writes in process of still being completed
> > > > > > we fall back to marking that register as unknown scalar so we don't end up
> > > > > > making assumptions about it. With this, both TOCTOU reproducers from i) and
> > > > > > ii) are fixed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Note that the map->writecnt has been converted into a atomic64 in the fix in
> > > > > > order to avoid a double freeze_mutex mutex_{un,}lock() pair when updating
> > > > > > map->writecnt in the various map update/delete BPF_* cmd flavors. Spanning
> > > > > > the freeze_mutex over entire map update/delete operations in syscall side
> > > > > > would not be possible due to then causing everything to be serialized.
> > > > > > Similarly, something like synchronize_rcu() after setting map->frozen to wait
> > > > > > for update/deletes to complete is not possible either since it would also
> > > > > > have to span the user copy which can sleep. On the libbpf side, this won't
> > > > > > break d66562fba1ce ("libbpf: Add BPF object skeleton support") as the
> > > > > > anonymous mmap()-ed "map initialization image" is remapped as a BPF map-backed
> > > > > > mmap()-ed memory where for .rodata it's non-writable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fixes: a23740ec43ba ("bpf: Track contents of read-only maps as scalars")
> > > > > > Reported-by: w1tcher.bupt@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > [fix conflict to call bpf_map_write_active_dec() in err_put block.
> > > > > > fix conflict to insert new functions after find_and_alloc_map().]
> > > > > > Reference: CVE-2021-4001
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Masami Ichikawa(CIP) <masami.ichikawa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > include/linux/bpf.h | 3 ++-
> > > > > > kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> > > > > > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 17 ++++++++++++-
> > > > > > 3 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > What stable tree(s) is this for?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm sorry that I forgot to specify stable tree name.
> > > > This patch is for 5.10.y branch.
> > >
> > > Wonderful, I will go queue it up now.
> > >
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > > Can you also provide a version for 5.4? It is needed there as well.
> > >
> >
> > I tried backporting to 5.4.y branch but 353050 ("bpf: Fix toctou on
> > read-only map's constant scalar tracking ") is based on several
> > commits that don't exist in the stable/linux-5.4.y branch. At least I
> > found following commits are needed.
> >
> > - fc97022 ("bpf: Add mmap() support for BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARRAY")
> > - 1f6cb19 ("bpf: Prevent re-mmap()'ing BPF map as writable for
> > initially r/o mapping")
> > - 196e8ca ("bpf: Switch bpf_map_{area_alloc,area_mmapable_alloc}() to
> > u64 size ")
> > - cb4d03a ("bpf: Add generic support for lookup batch op")
> >
> > So I couldn't simply apply 353050 to 5.4 .y branch.
> > Sorry for inconvenient.
>
> No worries, thanks for trying. If anyone really cares about this for
> the old 5.4 kernel tree, I'm sure they will provide a backported series.
>
I see. thanks.
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Regards,
--
/**
* Masami Ichikawa
* personal: masami256@xxxxxxxxx
* fedora project: masami@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*/
