[PATCH 5.15 136/136] bpf: Dont use tnum_range on array range checking for poke descriptors

Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-08-29T11:25:04Z

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

commit a657182a5c5150cdfacb6640aad1d2712571a409 upstream.

Hsin-Wei reported a KASAN splat triggered by their BPF runtime fuzzer which
is based on a customized syzkaller:

BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in bpf_int_jit_compile+0x1257/0x13f0
Read of size 8 at addr ffff888004e90b58 by task syz-executor.0/1489
CPU: 1 PID: 1489 Comm: syz-executor.0 Not tainted 5.19.0 #1
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS
1.13.0-1ubuntu1.1 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
<TASK>
dump_stack_lvl+0x9c/0xc9
print_address_description.constprop.0+0x1f/0x1f0
? bpf_int_jit_compile+0x1257/0x13f0
kasan_report.cold+0xeb/0x197
? kvmalloc_node+0x170/0x200
? bpf_int_jit_compile+0x1257/0x13f0
bpf_int_jit_compile+0x1257/0x13f0
? arch_prepare_bpf_dispatcher+0xd0/0xd0
? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x43/0x70
bpf_prog_select_runtime+0x3e8/0x640
? bpf_obj_name_cpy+0x149/0x1b0
bpf_prog_load+0x102f/0x2220
? __bpf_prog_put.constprop.0+0x220/0x220
? find_held_lock+0x2c/0x110
? __might_fault+0xd6/0x180
? lock_downgrade+0x6e0/0x6e0
? lock_is_held_type+0xa6/0x120
? __might_fault+0x147/0x180
__sys_bpf+0x137b/0x6070
? bpf_perf_link_attach+0x530/0x530
? new_sync_read+0x600/0x600
? __fget_files+0x255/0x450
? lock_downgrade+0x6e0/0x6e0
? fput+0x30/0x1a0
? ksys_write+0x1a8/0x260
__x64_sys_bpf+0x7a/0xc0
? syscall_enter_from_user_mode+0x21/0x70
do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
RIP: 0033:0x7f917c4e2c2d

The problem here is that a range of tnum_range(0, map->max_entries - 1) has
limited ability to represent the concrete tight range with the tnum as the
set of resulting states from value + mask can result in a superset of the
actual intended range, and as such a tnum_in(range, reg->var_off) check may
yield true when it shouldn't, for example tnum_range(0, 2) would result in
00XX -> v = 0000, m = 0011 such that the intended set of {0, 1, 2} is here
represented by a less precise superset of {0, 1, 2, 3}. As the register is
known const scalar, really just use the concrete reg->var_off.value for the
upper index check.

Fixes: d2e4c1e6c294 ("bpf: Constant map key tracking for prog array pokes")
Reported-by: Hsin-Wei Hung <hsinweih@uci.edu>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Cc: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/984b37f9fdf7ac36831d2137415a4a915744c1b6.1661462653.git.daniel@iogearbox.net
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 10 ++++------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -6096,8 +6096,7 @@ record_func_key(struct bpf_verifier_env
struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux = &env->insn_aux_data[insn_idx];
struct bpf_reg_state *regs = cur_regs(env), *reg;
struct bpf_map *map = meta->map_ptr;
- struct tnum range;
- u64 val;
+ u64 val, max;
int err;

if (func_id != BPF_FUNC_tail_call)
@@ -6107,10 +6106,11 @@ record_func_key(struct bpf_verifier_env
return -EINVAL;
}

- range = tnum_range(0, map->max_entries - 1);
reg = &regs[BPF_REG_3];
+ val = reg->var_off.value;
+ max = map->max_entries;

- if (!register_is_const(reg) || !tnum_in(range, reg->var_off)) {
+ if (!(register_is_const(reg) && val < max)) {
bpf_map_key_store(aux, BPF_MAP_KEY_POISON);
return 0;
}
@@ -6118,8 +6118,6 @@ record_func_key(struct bpf_verifier_env
err = mark_chain_precision(env, BPF_REG_3);
if (err)
return err;
-
- val = reg->var_off.value;
if (bpf_map_key_unseen(aux))
bpf_map_key_store(aux, val);
else if (!bpf_map_key_poisoned(aux) &&