On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 04:40:42PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 7/21/20 1:53 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> > Previously, there was no need for poke descriptors being present in
> > subprogram's bpf_prog_aux struct since tailcalls were simply not allowed
> > in them. Each subprog is JITed independently so in order to enable
> > JITing such subprograms, simply copy poke descriptors from main program
> > to subprogram's poke tab.
> >
> > Add also subprog's aux struct to the BPF map poke_progs list by calling
> > on it map_poke_track().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkow...@intel.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > index 3c1efc9d08fd..3428edf85220 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > @@ -9936,6 +9936,9 @@ static int jit_subprogs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> > goto out_undo_insn;
> > for (i = 0; i < env->subprog_cnt; i++) {
> > + struct bpf_map *map_ptr;
> > + int j;
> > +
> > subprog_start = subprog_end;
> > subprog_end = env->subprog_info[i + 1].start;
> > @@ -9960,6 +9963,23 @@ static int jit_subprogs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> > func[i]->aux->btf = prog->aux->btf;
> > func[i]->aux->func_info = prog->aux->func_info;
> > + for (j = 0; j < prog->aux->size_poke_tab; j++) {
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = bpf_jit_add_poke_descriptor(func[i],
> > +
> > &prog->aux->poke_tab[j]);
> > + if (ret < 0) {
> > + verbose(env, "adding tail call poke descriptor
> > failed\n");
> > + goto out_free;
> > + }
> > + map_ptr = func[i]->aux->poke_tab[j].tail_call.map;
> > + ret = map_ptr->ops->map_poke_track(map_ptr,
> > func[i]->aux);
> > + if (ret < 0) {
> > + verbose(env, "tracking tail call prog
> > failed\n");
> > + goto out_free;
> > + }
>
> Hmm, I don't think this is correct/complete. If some of these have been
> registered or
> if later on the JIT'ing fails but the subprog is already exposed to the prog
> array then
> it's /public/ at this point, so a later bpf_jit_free() in out_free will rip
> them mem
> while doing live patching on prog updates leading to UAF.
Ugh. So if we would precede the out_free label with map_poke_untrack() on error
path - would that be sufficient?
>
> > + }
> > +
> > /* Use bpf_prog_F_tag to indicate functions in stack traces.
> > * Long term would need debug info to populate names
> > */
> >
>
