bpf: undo prog rejection on read-only lock failure
Partially undo commit 9facc336 ("bpf: reject any prog that failed read-only lock") since it caused a regression, that is, syzkaller was able to manage to cause a panic via fault injection deep in set_memory_ro() path by letting an allocation fail: In x86's __change_page_attr_set_clr() it was able to change the attributes of the primary mapping but not in the alias mapping via cpa_process_alias(), so the second, inner call to the __change_page_attr() via __change_page_attr_set_clr() had to split a larger page and failed in the alloc_pages() with the artifically triggered allocation error which is then propagated down to the call site. Thus, for set_memory_ro() this means that it returned with an error, but from debugging a probe_kernel_write() revealed EFAULT on that memory since the primary mapping succeeded to get changed. Therefore the subsequent hdr->locked = 0 reset triggered the panic as it was performed on read-only memory, so call-site assumptions were infact wrong to assume that it would either succeed /or/ not succeed at all since there's no such rollback in set_memory_*() calls from partial change of mappings, in other words, we're left in a state that is "half done". A later undo via set_memory_rw() is succeeding though due to matching permissions on that part (aka due to the try_preserve_large_page() succeeding). While reproducing locally with explicitly triggering this error, the initial splitting only happens on rare occasions and in real world it would additionally need oom conditions, but that said, it could partially fail. Therefore, it is definitely wrong to bail out on set_memory_ro() error and reject the program with the set_memory_*() semantics we have today. Shouldn't have gone the extra mile since no other user in tree today infact checks for any set_memory_*() errors, e.g. neither module_enable_ro() / module_disable_ro() for module RO/NX handling which is mostly default these days nor kprobes core with alloc_insn_page() / free_insn_page() as examples that could be invoked long after bootup and original 314beb9b ("x86: bpf_jit_comp: secure bpf jit against spraying attacks") did neither when it got first introduced to BPF so "improving" with bailing out was clearly not right when set_memory_*() cannot handle it today. Kees suggested that if set_memory_*() can fail, we should annotate it with __must_check, and all callers need to deal with it gracefully given those set_memory_*() markings aren't "advisory", but they're expected to actually do what they say. This might be an option worth to move forward in future but would at the same time require that set_memory_*() calls from supporting archs are guaranteed to be "atomic" in that they provide rollback if part of the range fails, once that happened, the transition from RW -> RO could be made more robust that way, while subsequent RO -> RW transition /must/ continue guaranteeing to always succeed the undo part. Reported-by: syzbot+a4eb8c7766952a1ca872@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Reported-by: syzbot+d866d1925855328eac3b@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Fixes: 9facc336 ("bpf: reject any prog that failed read-only lock") Cc: Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Signed-off-by: NDaniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Acked-by: NAlexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: NAlexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Showing
想要评论请 注册 或 登录