From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Hasan Basbunar" <basbunarhasan@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: bpf_dbg: fix off-by-one in cmd_select and pcap_next_pkt
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2026 21:03:18 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260428210318.E5968C2BCAF@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260428100109.56572-1-basbunarhasan@gmail.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] The patch introduces a logic error that processes a phantom packet at EOF, leading to an out-of-bounds read and potential crash.
--
commit 0b409950f92375c0cacaee040b899aa78918dfb5
Author: Hasan Basbunar <basbunarhasan@gmail.com>
bpf: bpf_dbg: fix off-by-one in cmd_select and pcap_next_pkt
bpf_dbg's interactive 'select <N>' command, documented in the file
header ("select 3 (run etc will start from the 3rd packet in the pcap)")
to use 1-based packet indexing, advances the pcap cursor one packet too
many.
[ ... ]
> diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpf_dbg.c b/tools/bpf/bpf_dbg.c
> index 00e560a17baf..f21576dc2326 100644
> --- a/tools/bpf/bpf_dbg.c
> +++ b/tools/bpf/bpf_dbg.c
> @@ -923,12 +923,12 @@ static bool pcap_next_pkt(void)
> struct pcap_pkthdr *hdr = pcap_curr_pkt();
>
> if (pcap_ptr_va_curr + sizeof(*hdr) -
> - pcap_ptr_va_start >= pcap_map_size)
> + pcap_ptr_va_start > pcap_map_size)
> return false;
> if (hdr->caplen == 0 || hdr->len == 0 || hdr->caplen > hdr->len)
> return false;
> if (pcap_ptr_va_curr + sizeof(*hdr) + hdr->caplen -
> - pcap_ptr_va_start >= pcap_map_size)
> + pcap_ptr_va_start > pcap_map_size)
> return false;
>
> pcap_ptr_va_curr += (sizeof(*hdr) + hdr->caplen);
> return true;
Does this change cause pcap_next_pkt() to return true when advancing past the
final packet, leaving pcap_ptr_va_curr pointing exactly at the end of the
mapped file boundary?
If the cursor is placed at the end of the file, could this lead to an
out-of-bounds read in commands like run or step?
Looking at cmd_run(), the loop relies on pcap_next_pkt() returning false to
terminate on the final packet:
tools/bpf/bpf_dbg.c:cmd_run() {
...
do {
struct pcap_pkthdr *hdr = pcap_curr_pkt();
int ret = bpf_run_all(bpf_image, bpf_prog_len,
(uint8_t *) hdr + sizeof(*hdr),
hdr->caplen, hdr->len);
...
} while (pcap_next_pkt() && (!has_limit || (++i < pkts)));
...
}
If pcap_next_pkt() now returns true when advancing past the final packet, it
appears the loop will execute an extra iteration where pcap_curr_pkt() points
past the valid data, leading to an out-of-bounds dereference of hdr->caplen.
> @@ -1141,7 +1141,7 @@ static int cmd_select(char *num)
> pcap_reset_pkt();
> bpf_reset();
>
> - for (i = 0; i < which && (have_next = pcap_next_pkt()); i++)
> + for (i = 1; i < which && (have_next = pcap_next_pkt()); i++)
> /* noop */;
> if (!have_next || pcap_curr_pkt() == NULL) {
> rl_printf("no packet #%u available!\n", which);
Does the combination of these changes also cause the select command to
incorrectly succeed when requesting a packet beyond the end of the file?
If have_next receives true when advancing past the final packet, a command
like "select N+1" on an N-packet file will terminate the loop without an error
but leave the cursor positioned at the end of the mapped file boundary,
meaning subsequent commands could read out of bounds.
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260428100109.56572-1-basbunarhasan@gmail.com?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-28 21:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-28 10:01 [PATCH] bpf: bpf_dbg: fix off-by-one in cmd_select and pcap_next_pkt Hasan Basbunar
2026-04-28 21:03 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-04-29 8:44 ` [PATCH v2] bpf: bpf_dbg: fix off-by-one in cmd_select Hasan Basbunar
2026-04-29 9:41 ` sashiko-bot
2026-04-29 12:35 ` [PATCH v3] bpf: bpf_dbg: split pcap_next_pkt() validation/advance, " Hasan Basbunar
2026-04-29 13:13 ` bot+bpf-ci
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=20260428210318.E5968C2BCAF@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=basbunarhasan@gmail.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko@lists.linux.dev \
/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