BPF List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
To: Sanghyun Park <sanghyun.park.cnu@gmail.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
	Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
	Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
	Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
	Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
	Emil Tsalapatis <emil@etsalapatis.com>,
	Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>,
	Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@fomichev.me>,
	Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3] bpf: Fix stack out-of-bounds write in cgroup link update
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2026 18:26:11 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b380f7e7-2e0e-4c8c-9a70-e6a577d268cf@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260821084726.3769957-2-sanghyun.park.cnu@gmail.com>

On 21/8/26 16:47, Sanghyun Park wrote:
> The cgroup link update path checks only the program type. Several cgroup
> hooks share a type while using different runtime contexts or verifier
> contracts. A UDP6 sock_addr program can therefore replace a UDP4 program
> and write beyond the four-byte ipc.addr context into adjacent fields of
> the stack-local struct ipcm_cookie. The same omission lets an LSM_MAC
> program replace an LSM_CGROUP program despite the incompatible return
> semantics.
> 
> Validate replacement programs against the link attach type. Use the
> existing per-type rules where applicable, and compare LSM
> expected_attach_type explicitly because both flavors share
> BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM. Preserve legacy non-enforcing CGROUP_SKB
> ingress/egress updates.
> 
> CGROUP_SKB programs do not require CAP_NET_ADMIN when loaded. That
> permission is checked when the program is attached. Once the link exists,
> updates are controlled through its FD, so BPF_LINK_UPDATE does not check
> CAP_NET_ADMIN again. Keep this behavior and only validate the attach type
> during link update.

Any issue of checking CAP_NET_ADMIN for BPF_LINK_UPDATE?

If no, checking CAP_NET_ADMIN for BPF_LINK_UPDATE looks okay.

> 
> Fixes: 0c991ebc8c69 ("bpf: Implement bpf_prog replacement for an active bpf_cgroup_link")
> Signed-off-by: Sanghyun Park <sanghyun.park.cnu@gmail.com>
> ---
> v3:
>   - Factor the CGROUP_SKB CAP_NET_ADMIN check into an attach-only helper.
> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260818061021.2551771-2-sanghyun.park.cnu@gmail.com
>   - Extend validation from cgroup sock_addr programs to all cgroup program
>     types, including exact LSM attach flavors.
>   - Preserve legacy CGROUP_SKB ingress/egress replacement compatibility.
>   - Keep the CGROUP_SKB CAP_NET_ADMIN check on attach, not link update.
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260805052858.2390918-3-sanghyun.park.cnu@gmail.com
> ---
>  kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> index 6874ba1424af05..dfea337ff25ea5 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> @@ -4483,12 +4483,6 @@ static int bpf_prog_attach_check_attach_type(const struct bpf_prog *prog,
>  	case BPF_PROG_TYPE_SK_LOOKUP:
+	case BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM:

Add a 'case' here instead of checking it in link_update()?

And, a selftest is needed to verify the issue and the fix.

Thanks,
Leon

>  		return attach_type == prog->expected_attach_type ? 0 : -EINVAL;
> [...]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-08-21 10:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-08-21  8:47 [PATCH bpf-next v3] bpf: Fix stack out-of-bounds write in cgroup link update Sanghyun Park
2026-08-21  8:57 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-21  9:41 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-21 10:26 ` Leon Hwang [this message]
2026-08-21 13:41 ` Leon Hwang

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=b380f7e7-2e0e-4c8c-9a70-e6a577d268cf@linux.dev \
    --to=leon.hwang@linux.dev \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
    --cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --cc=memxor@gmail.com \
    --cc=pulehui@huawei.com \
    --cc=sanghyun.park.cnu@gmail.com \
    --cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
    --cc=song@kernel.org \
    --cc=yonghong.song@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