From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
To: <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, <ast@kernel.org>, <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Cc: <andrii@kernel.org>, <kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/4] bpf: fix potential 32-bit overflow when accessing ARRAY map element
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2022 22:31:43 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220715053146.1291891-2-andrii@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220715053146.1291891-1-andrii@kernel.org>
If BPF array map is bigger than 4GB, element pointer calculation can
overflow because both index and elem_size are u32. Fix this everywhere
by forcing 64-bit multiplication. Extract this formula into separate
small helper and use it consistently in various places.
Speculative-preventing formula utilizing index_mask trick is left as is,
but explicit u64 casts are added in both places.
Fixes: c85d69135a91 ("bpf: move memory size checks to bpf_map_charge_init()")
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
---
kernel/bpf/arraymap.c | 20 ++++++++++++--------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c b/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c
index fe40d3b9458f..1d05d63e6fa5 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c
@@ -156,6 +156,11 @@ static struct bpf_map *array_map_alloc(union bpf_attr *attr)
return &array->map;
}
+static void *array_map_elem_ptr(struct bpf_array* array, u32 index)
+{
+ return array->value + (u64)array->elem_size * index;
+}
+
/* Called from syscall or from eBPF program */
static void *array_map_lookup_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key)
{
@@ -165,7 +170,7 @@ static void *array_map_lookup_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key)
if (unlikely(index >= array->map.max_entries))
return NULL;
- return array->value + array->elem_size * (index & array->index_mask);
+ return array->value + (u64)array->elem_size * (index & array->index_mask);
}
static int array_map_direct_value_addr(const struct bpf_map *map, u64 *imm,
@@ -339,7 +344,7 @@ static int array_map_update_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, void *value,
value, map->value_size);
} else {
val = array->value +
- array->elem_size * (index & array->index_mask);
+ (u64)array->elem_size * (index & array->index_mask);
if (map_flags & BPF_F_LOCK)
copy_map_value_locked(map, val, value, false);
else
@@ -408,8 +413,7 @@ static void array_map_free_timers(struct bpf_map *map)
return;
for (i = 0; i < array->map.max_entries; i++)
- bpf_timer_cancel_and_free(array->value + array->elem_size * i +
- map->timer_off);
+ bpf_timer_cancel_and_free(array_map_elem_ptr(array, i) + map->timer_off);
}
/* Called when map->refcnt goes to zero, either from workqueue or from syscall */
@@ -420,7 +424,7 @@ static void array_map_free(struct bpf_map *map)
if (map_value_has_kptrs(map)) {
for (i = 0; i < array->map.max_entries; i++)
- bpf_map_free_kptrs(map, array->value + array->elem_size * i);
+ bpf_map_free_kptrs(map, array_map_elem_ptr(array, i));
bpf_map_free_kptr_off_tab(map);
}
@@ -556,7 +560,7 @@ static void *bpf_array_map_seq_start(struct seq_file *seq, loff_t *pos)
index = info->index & array->index_mask;
if (info->percpu_value_buf)
return array->pptrs[index];
- return array->value + array->elem_size * index;
+ return array_map_elem_ptr(array, index);
}
static void *bpf_array_map_seq_next(struct seq_file *seq, void *v, loff_t *pos)
@@ -575,7 +579,7 @@ static void *bpf_array_map_seq_next(struct seq_file *seq, void *v, loff_t *pos)
index = info->index & array->index_mask;
if (info->percpu_value_buf)
return array->pptrs[index];
- return array->value + array->elem_size * index;
+ return array_map_elem_ptr(array, index);
}
static int __bpf_array_map_seq_show(struct seq_file *seq, void *v)
@@ -690,7 +694,7 @@ static int bpf_for_each_array_elem(struct bpf_map *map, bpf_callback_t callback_
if (is_percpu)
val = this_cpu_ptr(array->pptrs[i]);
else
- val = array->value + array->elem_size * i;
+ val = array_map_elem_ptr(array, i);
num_elems++;
key = i;
ret = callback_fn((u64)(long)map, (u64)(long)&key,
--
2.30.2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-15 5:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-07-15 5:31 [PATCH v2 bpf-next 0/4] BPF array map fixes and improvements Andrii Nakryiko
2022-07-15 5:31 ` Andrii Nakryiko [this message]
2022-07-15 5:31 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 2/4] bpf: make uniform use of array->elem_size everywhere in arraymap.c Andrii Nakryiko
2022-07-15 5:31 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 3/4] bpf: remove obsolete KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE restriction on array map value size Andrii Nakryiko
2022-07-15 5:31 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 4/4] selftests/bpf: validate .bss section bigger than 8MB is possible now Andrii Nakryiko
2022-07-15 16:29 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 0/4] BPF array map fixes and improvements Yonghong Song
2022-07-19 16:50 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220715053146.1291891-2-andrii@kernel.org \
--to=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox