Re: [syzbot] [net?] UBSAN: shift-out-of-bounds in xfrm_selector_match (2)

Sabrina Dubroca
2024-09-27T08:38:31Z

2024-09-27, 09:30:09 +0200, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 01:08:48PM +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> > 2024-09-24, 14:51:20 -0700, syzbot wrote:
> > > syzbot has found a reproducer for the following issue on:
> > >
> > > HEAD commit: 151ac45348af net: sparx5: Fix invalid timestamps
> > > git tree: net-next
> > > console+strace: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=15808a80580000
> > > kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=37c006d80708398d
> > > dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=cc39f136925517aed571
> > > compiler: Debian clang version 15.0.6, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.40
> > > syz repro: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=122ad2a9980000
> > > C reproducer: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=1387b107980000
> >
> > syzbot managed to create an SA with:
> >
> > usersa.sel.family = 0
> > usersa.sel.prefixlen_s = 128
> > usersa.family = AF_INET
> >
> > Because of the AF_UNSPEC selector, verify_newsa_info doesn't put
> > limits on prefixlen_{s,d}. But then copy_from_user_state sets
> > x->sel.family to usersa.family (AF_INET).
> >
> > So I think verify_newsa_info should do the same conversion before
> > checking prefixlen:
> >
> >
> > diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c
> > index 55f039ec3d59..8d06a37adbd9 100644
> > --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c
> > +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c
> > @@ -201,6 +201,7 @@ static int verify_newsa_info(struct xfrm_usersa_info *p,
> > {
> > int err;
> > u8 sa_dir = attrs[XFRMA_SA_DIR] ? nla_get_u8(attrs[XFRMA_SA_DIR]) : 0;
> > + u16 family = p->sel.family;
> >
> > err = -EINVAL;
> > switch (p->family) {
> > @@ -221,7 +222,10 @@ static int verify_newsa_info(struct xfrm_usersa_info *p,
> > goto out;
> > }
> >
> > - switch (p->sel.family) {
> > + if (!family && !(p->flags & XFRM_STATE_AF_UNSPEC))
> > + family = p->family;
> > +
> > + switch (family) {
> > case AF_UNSPEC:
> > break;
> >
> >
> >
> > Steffen, does that make sense?
>
> Yes, it does. Later, in copy_from_user_state() we do
>
> if (!x->sel.family && !(p->flags & XFRM_STATE_AF_UNSPEC))
> x->sel.family = p->family;
>
> anyway.

Yes, that's what I based this on. Ok, so I'll make this a proper
patch, thanks.

> > Without this, we have prefixlen=128 when we get to addr4_match, which
> > does a shift of (32 - prefixlen), so we get
> >
> > UBSAN: shift-out-of-bounds in ./include/net/xfrm.h:900:23
> > shift exponent -96 is negative
> >
> >
> > Maybe a check for prefixlen < 128 would also be useful in the
> > XFRM_STATE_AF_UNSPEC case, to avoid the same problems with syzbot
> > passing prefixlen=200 for an ipv6 SA. I don't know how
> > XFRM_STATE_AF_UNSPEC is used, so I'm not sure what restrictions we can
> > put. If we end up with prefixlen = 100 used from ipv4 we'll still have
> > the same issues.
>
> I've introduced XFRM_STATE_AF_UNSPEC back in 2008 to make
> inter addressfamily tunnels working while maintaining
> backwards compatibility to openswan that did not set
> the selector family. At least that's what I found in
> an E-Mail conversation from back then.
>
> A check for prefixlen <= 128 would make sense in any case.
> But not sure if we can restrict that somehow further.

I'll add this check too, and then I'll run some more experiments with
that flag.

> >
> > > __ip4_datagram_connect+0x96c/0x1260 net/ipv4/datagram.c:49
> > > __ip6_datagram_connect+0x194/0x1230
> > > ip6_datagram_connect net/ipv6/datagram.c:279 [inline]
> > > ip6_datagram_connect_v6_only+0x63/0xa0 net/ipv6/datagram.c:291
> >
> > This path also looks a bit dubious. From the reproducer, we have a
> > rawv6 socket trying to connect to a v4mapped address, despite having
> > ip6_datagram_connect_v6_only as its ->connect.
> >
> > pingv6 sockets also use ip6_datagram_connect_v6_only and set
> > sk->sk_ipv6only=1 (in net/ipv4/ping.c ping_init_sock), but rawv6 don't
> > have this, so __ip6_datagram_connect can end up in
> > __ip4_datagram_connect. I guess it would make sense to set it in rawv6
> > too. rawv6_bind already rejected v4mapped addresses.
> >
> > And then we could add a DEBUG_NET_WARN_ON_ONCE(!ipv6_only_sock(sk)) in
> > ip6_datagram_connect_v6_only, or maybe even call ipv6_addr_type to
> > reject v4mapped addresses and reject them like the non-AF_INET6 case.
>
> I can't comment on that now, let me have a closer look into it.

This bit was more intended for Paolo/the netdev maintainers. I looked
into it a bit more yesterday, and I don't think we should do anything
for ping/raw sockets, because userspace can change sk_ipv6only via
setsockopt(with SOL_IPV6,IPV6_V6ONLY). So we can only make sure that
the kernel doesn't misbehave with v4mapped addresses, which I think is
the case (pingv6 sockets will return EINVAL when ping_v6_sendmsg sees
a v4mapped address, and rawv6 sockets will let the user send those
packets but I didn't see any OOB accesses).

--
Sabrina