BPF List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrei Matei <andreimatei1@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com,
	Andrei Matei <andreimatei1@gmail.com>,
	syzbot+33f4297b5f927648741a@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: [PATCH bpf] bpf: Protect against int overflow for stack access size
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 19:03:23 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240324230323.1097685-1-andreimatei1@gmail.com> (raw)

This patch re-introduces protection against the size of access to stack
memory being negative; the access size can appear negative as a result
of overflowing its signed int representation (the respective function
arguments is sometimes converted from a u32 and u64 without any overflow
checking), and causes out-of-bounds array accesses in
check_stack_range_initialized(). This patch causes the verification of a
program with such a non-sensical access size to fail.

This check used to exist in a more indirect way, but was inadvertendly
removed in a833a17a.

This omission was found by syzkaller. I have failed to actually create a
program that triggers the issue (different other protections kick in for
different code paths). The syzkaller program is opaque and I failed to
fully decipher it; from what I gather, it declares a map with a huge
value type (0x80000001 bytes, which is INT_MAX + 2), and somehow calls a
helper (bpf_map_peek_elem), and manages to pass to it a pointer to the
stack while, at the same time, the size of values in this map is being
used as the "access size".

Fixes: a833a17a ("bpf: Fix verification of indirect var-off stack access")
Reported-by: syzbot+33f4297b5f927648741a@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAADnVQLORV5PT0iTAhRER+iLBTkByCYNBYyvBSgjN1T31K+gOw@mail.gmail.com/
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 0bfc0050db28..2019d6177969 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -6701,6 +6701,8 @@ static int check_stack_access_within_bounds(
 	err = check_stack_slot_within_bounds(env, min_off, state, type);
 	if (!err && max_off > 0)
 		err = -EINVAL; /* out of stack access into non-negative offsets */
+	if (!err && access_size < 0)
+		err = -EINVAL; /* invalid negative access size; integer overflow? */
 
 	if (err) {
 		if (tnum_is_const(reg->var_off)) {
-- 
2.40.1


             reply	other threads:[~2024-03-24 23:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-03-24 23:03 Andrei Matei [this message]
2024-03-25  1:07 ` [PATCH bpf] bpf: Protect against int overflow for stack access size Alexei Starovoitov
2024-03-26  2:56   ` Andrei Matei

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=20240324230323.1097685-1-andreimatei1@gmail.com \
    --to=andreimatei1@gmail.com \
    --cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=syzbot+33f4297b5f927648741a@syzkaller.appspotmail.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