Linux Kernel Mentees list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yonghong Song via Linux-kernel-mentees <linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
	syzbot+bed360704c521841c85d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	Clang-Built-Linux ML <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@kernel.org>,
	syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com>,
	KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
	nathan@kernel.org, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] bpf: core: fix shift-out-of-bounds in ___bpf_prog_run
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2021 14:39:57 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f045d171-15ff-8755-bcb7-4e20ca79b28a@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAADnVQKexxZQw0yK_7rmFOdaYabaFpi2EmF6RGs5bXvFHtUQaA@mail.gmail.com>



On 6/5/21 12:10 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 5, 2021 at 10:55 AM Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/5/21 8:01 AM, Kurt Manucredo wrote:
>>> Syzbot detects a shift-out-of-bounds in ___bpf_prog_run()
>>> kernel/bpf/core.c:1414:2.
>>
>> This is not enough. We need more information on why this happens
>> so we can judge whether the patch indeed fixed the issue.
>>
>>>
>>> I propose: In adjust_scalar_min_max_vals() move boundary check up to avoid
>>> missing them and return with error when detected.
>>>
>>> Reported-and-tested-by: syzbot+bed360704c521841c85d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
>>> Signed-off-by: Kurt Manucredo <fuzzybritches0@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=edb51be4c9a320186328893287bb30d5eed09231
>>>
>>> Changelog:
>>> ----------
>>> v4 - Fix shift-out-of-bounds in adjust_scalar_min_max_vals.
>>>        Fix commit message.
>>> v3 - Make it clearer what the fix is for.
>>> v2 - Fix shift-out-of-bounds in ___bpf_prog_run() by adding boundary
>>>        check in check_alu_op() in verifier.c.
>>> v1 - Fix shift-out-of-bounds in ___bpf_prog_run() by adding boundary
>>>        check in ___bpf_prog_run().
>>>
>>> thanks
>>>
>>> kind regards
>>>
>>> Kurt
>>>
>>>    kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 30 +++++++++---------------------
>>>    1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>> index 94ba5163d4c5..ed0eecf20de5 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>> @@ -7510,6 +7510,15 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>>>        u32_min_val = src_reg.u32_min_value;
>>>        u32_max_val = src_reg.u32_max_value;
>>>
>>> +     if ((opcode == BPF_LSH || opcode == BPF_RSH || opcode == BPF_ARSH) &&
>>> +                     umax_val >= insn_bitness) {
>>> +             /* Shifts greater than 31 or 63 are undefined.
>>> +              * This includes shifts by a negative number.
>>> +              */
>>> +             verbose(env, "invalid shift %lld\n", umax_val);
>>> +             return -EINVAL;
>>> +     }
>>
>> I think your fix is good. I would like to move after
> 
> I suspect such change will break valid programs that do shift by register.

Oh yes, you are correct. We should guard it with src_known.
But this should be extremely rare with explicit shifting amount being
greater than 31/64 and if it is the case, the compiler will has a
warning.

> 
>> the following code though:
>>
>>           if (!src_known &&
>>               opcode != BPF_ADD && opcode != BPF_SUB && opcode != BPF_AND) {
>>                   __mark_reg_unknown(env, dst_reg);
>>                   return 0;
>>           }
>>
>>> +
>>>        if (alu32) {
>>>                src_known = tnum_subreg_is_const(src_reg.var_off);
>>>                if ((src_known &&
>>> @@ -7592,39 +7601,18 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>>>                scalar_min_max_xor(dst_reg, &src_reg);
>>>                break;
>>>        case BPF_LSH:
>>> -             if (umax_val >= insn_bitness) {
>>> -                     /* Shifts greater than 31 or 63 are undefined.
>>> -                      * This includes shifts by a negative number.
>>> -                      */
>>> -                     mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, insn->dst_reg);
>>> -                     break;
>>> -             }
>>
>> I think this is what happens. For the above case, we simply
>> marks the dst reg as unknown and didn't fail verification.
>> So later on at runtime, the shift optimization will have wrong
>> shift value (> 31/64). Please correct me if this is not right
>> analysis. As I mentioned in the early please write detailed
>> analysis in commit log.
> 
> The large shift is not wrong. It's just undefined.
> syzbot has to ignore such cases.

Agree. This makes sense.
_______________________________________________
Linux-kernel-mentees mailing list
Linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-kernel-mentees

  reply	other threads:[~2021-06-05 21:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <000000000000c2987605be907e41@google.com>
2021-06-02 21:27 ` [PATCH v3] bpf: core: fix shift-out-of-bounds in ___bpf_prog_run Kurt Manucredo
2021-06-03  4:43   ` Greg KH
2021-06-05 15:01     ` [PATCH v4] " Kurt Manucredo
2021-06-05 17:55       ` Yonghong Song via Linux-kernel-mentees
2021-06-05 19:10         ` Alexei Starovoitov
2021-06-05 21:39           ` Yonghong Song via Linux-kernel-mentees [this message]
2021-06-06 19:44             ` Kurt Manucredo
2021-06-07  7:38           ` Dmitry Vyukov via Linux-kernel-mentees
2021-06-09 18:20             ` Kees Cook
2021-06-09 23:40               ` Yonghong Song via Linux-kernel-mentees
2021-06-10  5:32                 ` Dmitry Vyukov via Linux-kernel-mentees
2021-06-10  6:06                   ` Yonghong Song via Linux-kernel-mentees
2021-06-10 17:06                     ` Kees Cook
2021-06-10 17:52                       ` Alexei Starovoitov
2021-06-10 20:00                         ` Eric Biggers
2021-06-06 19:15         ` Kurt Manucredo

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=f045d171-15ff-8755-bcb7-4e20ca79b28a@fb.com \
    --to=linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=hawk@kernel.org \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=kafai@fb.com \
    --cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nathan@kernel.org \
    --cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
    --cc=syzbot+bed360704c521841c85d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com \
    --cc=syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=yhs@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