On 5/8/20 11:53 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
From: Alexei Starovoitov <a...@kernel.org>

Implement permissions as stated in uapi/linux/capability.h
In order to do that the verifier allow_ptr_leaks flag is split
into allow_ptr_leaks and bpf_capable flags and they are set as:
   env->allow_ptr_leaks = perfmon_capable();
   env->bpf_capable = bpf_capable();

bpf_capable enables bounded loops, variable stack access and other verifier 
features.
allow_ptr_leaks enable ptr leaks, ptr conversions, subtraction of pointers, etc.
It also disables side channel mitigations.

That means that the networking BPF program loaded with CAP_BPF + CAP_NET_ADMIN 
will
have speculative checks done by the verifier and other spectre mitigation 
applied.
Such networking BPF program will not be able to leak kernel pointers.

I don't quite follow this part in the code below yet, see my comments.

Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <a...@kernel.org>
[...]
diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
index 6abd5a778fcd..c32a7880fa62 100644
--- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
+++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
@@ -375,6 +375,7 @@ struct bpf_verifier_env {
        u32 used_map_cnt;               /* number of used maps */
        u32 id_gen;                     /* used to generate unique reg IDs */
        bool allow_ptr_leaks;
+       bool bpf_capable;
        bool seen_direct_write;
        struct bpf_insn_aux_data *insn_aux_data; /* array of per-insn state */
        const struct bpf_line_info *prev_linfo;
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c b/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c
index 95d77770353c..264a9254dc39 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c
@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ static struct bpf_map *array_map_alloc(union bpf_attr *attr)
        bool percpu = attr->map_type == BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY;
        int ret, numa_node = bpf_map_attr_numa_node(attr);
        u32 elem_size, index_mask, max_entries;
-       bool unpriv = !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN);
+       bool unpriv = !bpf_capable();

So here progs loaded with CAP_BPF will have spectre mitigations bypassed which
is the opposite of above statement, no?

        u64 cost, array_size, mask64;
        struct bpf_map_memory mem;
        struct bpf_array *array;
[...]
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
index 6aa11de67315..8f421dd0c4cf 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
@@ -646,7 +646,7 @@ static bool bpf_prog_kallsyms_verify_off(const struct 
bpf_prog *fp)
  void bpf_prog_kallsyms_add(struct bpf_prog *fp)
  {
        if (!bpf_prog_kallsyms_candidate(fp) ||
-           !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
+           !bpf_capable())
                return;
bpf_prog_ksym_set_addr(fp);
@@ -824,7 +824,7 @@ static int bpf_jit_charge_modmem(u32 pages)
  {
        if (atomic_long_add_return(pages, &bpf_jit_current) >
            (bpf_jit_limit >> PAGE_SHIFT)) {
-               if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) {
+               if (!bpf_capable()) {

Should there still be an upper charge on module mem for !CAP_SYS_ADMIN?

                        atomic_long_sub(pages, &bpf_jit_current);
                        return -EPERM;
                }
[...]
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 70ad009577f8..a6893746cd87 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
[...]
@@ -3428,7 +3429,7 @@ static int check_stack_boundary(struct bpf_verifier_env 
*env, int regno,
                 * Spectre masking for stack ALU.
                 * See also retrieve_ptr_limit().
                 */
-               if (!env->allow_ptr_leaks) {
+               if (!env->bpf_capable) {

This needs to stay on env->allow_ptr_leaks, the can_skip_alu_sanitation() does
check on env->allow_ptr_leaks as well, otherwise this breaks spectre mitgation
when masking alu.

                        char tn_buf[48];
tnum_strn(tn_buf, sizeof(tn_buf), reg->var_off);
@@ -7229,7 +7230,7 @@ static int push_insn(int t, int w, int e, struct 
bpf_verifier_env *env,
                insn_stack[env->cfg.cur_stack++] = w;
                return 1;
        } else if ((insn_state[w] & 0xF0) == DISCOVERED) {
-               if (loop_ok && env->allow_ptr_leaks)
+               if (loop_ok && env->bpf_capable)
                        return 0;
                verbose_linfo(env, t, "%d: ", t);
                verbose_linfo(env, w, "%d: ", w);
@@ -8338,7 +8339,7 @@ static int is_state_visited(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, 
int insn_idx)
        if (env->max_states_per_insn < states_cnt)
                env->max_states_per_insn = states_cnt;
- if (!env->allow_ptr_leaks && states_cnt > BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_STATES)
+       if (!env->bpf_capable && states_cnt > BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_STATES)
                return push_jmp_history(env, cur);
if (!add_new_state)
@@ -9998,7 +9999,7 @@ static int fixup_bpf_calls(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
                        insn->code = BPF_JMP | BPF_TAIL_CALL;
aux = &env->insn_aux_data[i + delta];
-                       if (env->allow_ptr_leaks && !expect_blinding &&
+                       if (env->bpf_capable && !expect_blinding &&
                            prog->jit_requested &&
                            !bpf_map_key_poisoned(aux) &&
                            !bpf_map_ptr_poisoned(aux) &&
@@ -10725,7 +10726,7 @@ int bpf_check(struct bpf_prog **prog, union bpf_attr 
*attr,
                env->insn_aux_data[i].orig_idx = i;
        env->prog = *prog;
        env->ops = bpf_verifier_ops[env->prog->type];
-       is_priv = capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN);
+       is_priv = bpf_capable();
if (!btf_vmlinux && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF)) {
                mutex_lock(&bpf_verifier_lock);
@@ -10766,7 +10767,8 @@ int bpf_check(struct bpf_prog **prog, union bpf_attr 
*attr,
        if (attr->prog_flags & BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT)
                env->strict_alignment = false;
- env->allow_ptr_leaks = is_priv;
+       env->allow_ptr_leaks = perfmon_capable();
+       env->bpf_capable = bpf_capable();

Reply via email to