mirror of
https://github.com/edk2-porting/linux-next.git
synced 2024-12-26 14:14:01 +08:00
4f3446bb80
This work adds a generic facility for use from eBPF JIT compilers that allows for further hardening of JIT generated images through blinding constants. In response to the original work on BPF JIT spraying published by Keegan McAllister [1], most BPF JITs were changed to make images read-only and start at a randomized offset in the page, where the rest was filled with trap instructions. We have this nowadays in x86, arm, arm64 and s390 JIT compilers. Additionally, later work also made eBPF interpreter images read only for kernels supporting DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX, that is, x86, arm, arm64 and s390 archs as well currently. This is done by default for mentioned JITs when JITing is enabled. Furthermore, we had a generic and configurable constant blinding facility on our todo for quite some time now to further make spraying harder, and first implementation since around netconf 2016. We found that for systems where untrusted users can load cBPF/eBPF code where JIT is enabled, start offset randomization helps a bit to make jumps into crafted payload harder, but in case where larger programs that cross page boundary are injected, we again have some part of the program opcodes at a page start offset. With improved guessing and more reliable payload injection, chances can increase to jump into such payload. Elena Reshetova recently wrote a test case for it [2, 3]. Moreover, eBPF comes with 64 bit constants, which can leave some more room for payloads. Note that for all this, additional bugs in the kernel are still required to make the jump (and of course to guess right, to not jump into a trap) and naturally the JIT must be enabled, which is disabled by default. For helping mitigation, the general idea is to provide an option bpf_jit_harden that admins can tweak along with bpf_jit_enable, so that for cases where JIT should be enabled for performance reasons, the generated image can be further hardened with blinding constants for unpriviledged users (bpf_jit_harden == 1), with trading off performance for these, but not for privileged ones. We also added the option of blinding for all users (bpf_jit_harden == 2), which is quite helpful for testing f.e. with test_bpf.ko. There are no further e.g. hardening levels of bpf_jit_harden switch intended, rationale is to have it dead simple to use as on/off. Since this functionality would need to be duplicated over and over for JIT compilers to use, which are already complex enough, we provide a generic eBPF byte-code level based blinding implementation, which is then just transparently JITed. JIT compilers need to make only a few changes to integrate this facility and can be migrated one by one. This option is for eBPF JITs and will be used in x86, arm64, s390 without too much effort, and soon ppc64 JITs, thus that native eBPF can be blinded as well as cBPF to eBPF migrations, so that both can be covered with a single implementation. The rule for JITs is that bpf_jit_blind_constants() must be called from bpf_int_jit_compile(), and in case blinding is disabled, we follow normally with JITing the passed program. In case blinding is enabled and we fail during the process of blinding itself, we must return with the interpreter. Similarly, in case the JITing process after the blinding failed, we return normally to the interpreter with the non-blinded code. Meaning, interpreter doesn't change in any way and operates on eBPF code as usual. For doing this pre-JIT blinding step, we need to make use of a helper/auxiliary register, here BPF_REG_AX. This is strictly internal to the JIT and not in any way part of the eBPF architecture. Just like in the same way as JITs internally make use of some helper registers when emitting code, only that here the helper register is one abstraction level higher in eBPF bytecode, but nevertheless in JIT phase. That helper register is needed since f.e. manually written program can issue loads to all registers of eBPF architecture. The core concept with the additional register is: blind out all 32 and 64 bit constants by converting BPF_K based instructions into a small sequence from K_VAL into ((RND ^ K_VAL) ^ RND). Therefore, this is transformed into: BPF_REG_AX := (RND ^ K_VAL), BPF_REG_AX ^= RND, and REG <OP> BPF_REG_AX, so actual operation on the target register is translated from BPF_K into BPF_X one that is operating on BPF_REG_AX's content. During rewriting phase when blinding, RND is newly generated via prandom_u32() for each processed instruction. 64 bit loads are split into two 32 bit loads to make translation and patching not too complex. Only basic thing required by JITs is to call the helper bpf_jit_blind_constants()/bpf_jit_prog_release_other() pair, and to map BPF_REG_AX into an unused register. Small bpf_jit_disasm extract from [2] when applied to x86 JIT: echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_harden ffffffffa034f5e9 + <x>: [...] 39: mov $0xa8909090,%eax 3e: mov $0xa8909090,%eax 43: mov $0xa8ff3148,%eax 48: mov $0xa89081b4,%eax 4d: mov $0xa8900bb0,%eax 52: mov $0xa810e0c1,%eax 57: mov $0xa8908eb4,%eax 5c: mov $0xa89020b0,%eax [...] echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_harden ffffffffa034f1e5 + <x>: [...] 39: mov $0xe1192563,%r10d 3f: xor $0x4989b5f3,%r10d 46: mov %r10d,%eax 49: mov $0xb8296d93,%r10d 4f: xor $0x10b9fd03,%r10d 56: mov %r10d,%eax 59: mov $0x8c381146,%r10d 5f: xor $0x24c7200e,%r10d 66: mov %r10d,%eax 69: mov $0xeb2a830e,%r10d 6f: xor $0x43ba02ba,%r10d 76: mov %r10d,%eax 79: mov $0xd9730af,%r10d 7f: xor $0xa5073b1f,%r10d 86: mov %r10d,%eax 89: mov $0x9a45662b,%r10d 8f: xor $0x325586ea,%r10d 96: mov %r10d,%eax [...] As can be seen, original constants that carry payload are hidden when enabled, actual operations are transformed from constant-based to register-based ones, making jumps into constants ineffective. Above extract/example uses single BPF load instruction over and over, but of course all instructions with constants are blinded. Performance wise, JIT with blinding performs a bit slower than just JIT and faster than interpreter case. This is expected, since we still get all the performance benefits from JITing and in normal use-cases not every single instruction needs to be blinded. Summing up all 296 test cases averaged over multiple runs from test_bpf.ko suite, interpreter was 55% slower than JIT only and JIT with blinding was 8% slower than JIT only. Since there are also some extremes in the test suite, I expect for ordinary workloads that the performance for the JIT with blinding case is even closer to JIT only case, f.e. nmap test case from suite has averaged timings in ns 29 (JIT), 35 (+ blinding), and 151 (interpreter). BPF test suite, seccomp test suite, eBPF sample code and various bigger networking eBPF programs have been tested with this and were running fine. For testing purposes, I also adapted interpreter and redirected blinded eBPF image to interpreter and also here all tests pass. [1] http://mainisusuallyafunction.blogspot.com/2012/11/attacking-hardened-linux-systems-with.html [2] https://github.com/01org/jit-spray-poc-for-ksp/ [3] http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2016/05/03/5 Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Reviewed-by: Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@intel.com> Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| 00-INDEX | ||
| abi.txt | ||
| fs.txt | ||
| kernel.txt | ||
| net.txt | ||
| README | ||
| sunrpc.txt | ||
| vm.txt | ||
Documentation for /proc/sys/ kernel version 2.2.10 (c) 1998, 1999, Rik van Riel <riel@nl.linux.org> 'Why', I hear you ask, 'would anyone even _want_ documentation for them sysctl files? If anybody really needs it, it's all in the source...' Well, this documentation is written because some people either don't know they need to tweak something, or because they don't have the time or knowledge to read the source code. Furthermore, the programmers who built sysctl have built it to be actually used, not just for the fun of programming it :-) ============================================================== Legal blurb: As usual, there are two main things to consider: 1. you get what you pay for 2. it's free The consequences are that I won't guarantee the correctness of this document, and if you come to me complaining about how you screwed up your system because of wrong documentation, I won't feel sorry for you. I might even laugh at you... But of course, if you _do_ manage to screw up your system using only the sysctl options used in this file, I'd like to hear of it. Not only to have a great laugh, but also to make sure that you're the last RTFMing person to screw up. In short, e-mail your suggestions, corrections and / or horror stories to: <riel@nl.linux.org> Rik van Riel. ============================================================== Introduction: Sysctl is a means of configuring certain aspects of the kernel at run-time, and the /proc/sys/ directory is there so that you don't even need special tools to do it! In fact, there are only four things needed to use these config facilities: - a running Linux system - root access - common sense (this is especially hard to come by these days) - knowledge of what all those values mean As a quick 'ls /proc/sys' will show, the directory consists of several (arch-dependent?) subdirs. Each subdir is mainly about one part of the kernel, so you can do configuration on a piece by piece basis, or just some 'thematic frobbing'. The subdirs are about: abi/ execution domains & personalities debug/ <empty> dev/ device specific information (eg dev/cdrom/info) fs/ specific filesystems filehandle, inode, dentry and quota tuning binfmt_misc <Documentation/binfmt_misc.txt> kernel/ global kernel info / tuning miscellaneous stuff net/ networking stuff, for documentation look in: <Documentation/networking/> proc/ <empty> sunrpc/ SUN Remote Procedure Call (NFS) vm/ memory management tuning buffer and cache management These are the subdirs I have on my system. There might be more or other subdirs in another setup. If you see another dir, I'd really like to hear about it :-)