Re: [PATCH v2] bpf: Replace bpf_lpm_trie_key 0-length array with flexible array

Kees Cook
2024-02-17T03:03:20Z

On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 06:27:08PM -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
>
> On 2/16/24 17:55, Kees Cook wrote:
> > Replace deprecated 0-length array in struct bpf_lpm_trie_key with
> > flexible array. Found with GCC 13:
> >
> > ../kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c:207:51: warning: array subscript i is outside array bounds of 'const __u8[0]' {aka 'const unsigned char[]'} [-Warray-bounds=]
> > 207 | *(__be16 *)&key->data[i]);
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > ../include/uapi/linux/swab.h:102:54: note: in definition of macro '__swab16'
> > 102 | #define __swab16(x) (__u16)__builtin_bswap16((__u16)(x))
> > | ^
> > ../include/linux/byteorder/generic.h:97:21: note: in expansion of macro '__be16_to_cpu'
> > 97 | #define be16_to_cpu __be16_to_cpu
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > ../kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c:206:28: note: in expansion of macro 'be16_to_cpu'
> > 206 | u16 diff = be16_to_cpu(*(__be16 *)&node->data[i]
> > ^
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~
> > In file included from ../include/linux/bpf.h:7:
> > ../include/uapi/linux/bpf.h:82:17: note: while referencing 'data'
> > 82 | __u8 data[0]; /* Arbitrary size */
> > | ^~~~
> >
> > And found at run-time under CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE:
> >
> > UBSAN: array-index-out-of-bounds in kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c:218:49
> > index 0 is out of range for type '__u8 [*]'
> >
> > This includes fixing the selftest which was incorrectly using a
> > variable length struct as a header, identified earlier[1]. Avoid this
> > by just explicitly including the prefixlen member instead of struct
> > bpf_lpm_trie_key.
> >
> > Note that it is not possible to simply remove the "data" member, as it
> > is referenced by userspace
> >
> > cilium:
> > struct egress_gw_policy_key in_key = {
> > .lpm_key = { 32 + 24, {} },
> > .saddr = CLIENT_IP,
> > .daddr = EXTERNAL_SVC_IP & 0Xffffff,
> > };
> >
> > systemd:
> > ipv6_map_fd = bpf_map_new(
> > BPF_MAP_TYPE_LPM_TRIE,
> > offsetof(struct bpf_lpm_trie_key, data) + sizeof(uint32_t)*4,
> > sizeof(uint64_t),
> > ...
> >
> > The only risk to UAPI would be if sizeof() were used directly on the
> > data member, which it does not seem to be. It is only used as a static
> > initializer destination and to find its location via offsetof().
> >
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/202206281009.4332AA33@keescook/ [1]
> > Reported-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> > Closes: https://paste.debian.net/hidden/ca500597/
>
> mmh... this URL expires: 2024-05-15

Yup, but that's why I included the run-time splat above too. :)

--
Kees Cook