From 11f522256e9043b0fcd2f994278645d3e201d20c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Hari Bathini Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 15:31:15 +0530 Subject: bpf: Fix warning for bpf_cpumask in verifier Compiling with CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL & !CONFIG_BPF_JIT throws the below warning: "WARN: resolve_btfids: unresolved symbol bpf_cpumask" Fix it by adding the appropriate #ifdef. Signed-off-by: Hari Bathini Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko Acked-by: Jiri Olsa Acked-by: Stanislav Fomichev Acked-by: David Vernet Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240208100115.602172-1-hbathini@linux.ibm.com --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) (limited to 'kernel') diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 65f598694d55..b263f093ee76 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -5227,7 +5227,9 @@ BTF_ID(struct, prog_test_ref_kfunc) #ifdef CONFIG_CGROUPS BTF_ID(struct, cgroup) #endif +#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_JIT BTF_ID(struct, bpf_cpumask) +#endif BTF_ID(struct, task_struct) BTF_SET_END(rcu_protected_types) -- cgit From 0281b919e175bb9c3128bd3872ac2903e9436e3f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Martin KaFai Lau Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 13:12:17 -0800 Subject: bpf: Fix racing between bpf_timer_cancel_and_free and bpf_timer_cancel The following race is possible between bpf_timer_cancel_and_free and bpf_timer_cancel. It will lead a UAF on the timer->timer. bpf_timer_cancel(); spin_lock(); t = timer->time; spin_unlock(); bpf_timer_cancel_and_free(); spin_lock(); t = timer->timer; timer->timer = NULL; spin_unlock(); hrtimer_cancel(&t->timer); kfree(t); /* UAF on t */ hrtimer_cancel(&t->timer); In bpf_timer_cancel_and_free, this patch frees the timer->timer after a rcu grace period. This requires a rcu_head addition to the "struct bpf_hrtimer". Another kfree(t) happens in bpf_timer_init, this does not need a kfree_rcu because it is still under the spin_lock and timer->timer has not been visible by others yet. In bpf_timer_cancel, rcu_read_lock() is added because this helper can be used in a non rcu critical section context (e.g. from a sleepable bpf prog). Other timer->timer usages in helpers.c have been audited, bpf_timer_cancel() is the only place where timer->timer is used outside of the spin_lock. Another solution considered is to mark a t->flag in bpf_timer_cancel and clear it after hrtimer_cancel() is done. In bpf_timer_cancel_and_free, it busy waits for the flag to be cleared before kfree(t). This patch goes with a straight forward solution and frees timer->timer after a rcu grace period. Fixes: b00628b1c7d5 ("bpf: Introduce bpf timers.") Suggested-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Hou Tao Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240215211218.990808-1-martin.lau@linux.dev --- kernel/bpf/helpers.c | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'kernel') diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c index be72824f32b2..d19cd863d294 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c @@ -1101,6 +1101,7 @@ struct bpf_hrtimer { struct bpf_prog *prog; void __rcu *callback_fn; void *value; + struct rcu_head rcu; }; /* the actual struct hidden inside uapi struct bpf_timer */ @@ -1332,6 +1333,7 @@ BPF_CALL_1(bpf_timer_cancel, struct bpf_timer_kern *, timer) if (in_nmi()) return -EOPNOTSUPP; + rcu_read_lock(); __bpf_spin_lock_irqsave(&timer->lock); t = timer->timer; if (!t) { @@ -1353,6 +1355,7 @@ out: * if it was running. */ ret = ret ?: hrtimer_cancel(&t->timer); + rcu_read_unlock(); return ret; } @@ -1407,7 +1410,7 @@ out: */ if (this_cpu_read(hrtimer_running) != t) hrtimer_cancel(&t->timer); - kfree(t); + kfree_rcu(t, rcu); } BPF_CALL_2(bpf_kptr_xchg, void *, map_value, void *, ptr) -- cgit From 5f2ae606cb5a90839a9be9d22388c4200f820e75 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Yafang Shao Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2024 19:41:51 +0800 Subject: bpf: Fix an issue due to uninitialized bpf_iter_task Failure to initialize it->pos, coupled with the presence of an invalid value in the flags variable, can lead to it->pos referencing an invalid task, potentially resulting in a kernel panic. To mitigate this risk, it's crucial to ensure proper initialization of it->pos to NULL. Fixes: ac8148d957f5 ("bpf: bpf_iter_task_next: use next_task(kit->task) rather than next_task(kit->pos)") Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Yonghong Song Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240217114152.1623-2-laoar.shao@gmail.com --- kernel/bpf/task_iter.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) (limited to 'kernel') diff --git a/kernel/bpf/task_iter.c b/kernel/bpf/task_iter.c index e5c3500443c6..ec4e97c61eef 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/task_iter.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/task_iter.c @@ -978,6 +978,8 @@ __bpf_kfunc int bpf_iter_task_new(struct bpf_iter_task *it, BUILD_BUG_ON(__alignof__(struct bpf_iter_task_kern) != __alignof__(struct bpf_iter_task)); + kit->pos = NULL; + switch (flags) { case BPF_TASK_ITER_ALL_THREADS: case BPF_TASK_ITER_ALL_PROCS: -- cgit