aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/Documentation/networking
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorAlexei Starovoitov <ast@plumgrid.com>2014-09-26 00:17:02 -0700
committerDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>2014-09-26 15:05:14 -0400
commit51580e798cb61b0fc63fa3aa6c5c975375aa0550 (patch)
tree2b608f048ba6415a28be79135af26f28ba7ebd5b /Documentation/networking
parent0a542a86d73b1577e7d4f55fc95dcffd3fe62643 (diff)
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 <ast@plumgrid.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/networking')
-rw-r--r--Documentation/networking/filter.txt224
1 files changed, 224 insertions, 0 deletions
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
-------

Privacy Policy