From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@kernel.org>
To: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
Cc: cve@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-cve-announce@vger.kernel.org,
"João Póvoas" <joao.povoas@suse.com>
Subject: Re: CVE-2022-50450: libbpf: Use elf_getshdrnum() instead of e_shnum
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 07:55:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2025100912-ambiguity-emblem-1f96@gregkh> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ptkuwiorj7dby6ofq4thv6mxtu7kf2zgb4grpyng3ygjv6oyi2@3dsumpqpjrst>
On Thu, Oct 09, 2025 at 01:31:32PM +0800, Shung-Hsi Yu wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2025 at 01:45:20PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@kernel.org>
> >
> > Description
> > ===========
> >
> > In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
> >
> > libbpf: Use elf_getshdrnum() instead of e_shnum
> >
> > This commit replace e_shnum with the elf_getshdrnum() helper to fix two
> > oss-fuzz-reported heap-buffer overflow in __bpf_object__open. Both
> > reports are incorrectly marked as fixed and while still being
> > reproducible in the latest libbpf.
> >
> > # clusterfuzz-testcase-minimized-bpf-object-fuzzer-5747922482888704
> > libbpf: loading object 'fuzz-object' from buffer
> > libbpf: sec_cnt is 0
> > libbpf: elf: section(1) .data, size 0, link 538976288, flags 2020202020202020, type=2
> > libbpf: elf: section(2) .data, size 32, link 538976288, flags 202020202020ff20, type=1
> > =================================================================
> > ==13==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflow on address 0x6020000000c0 at pc 0x0000005a7b46 bp 0x7ffd12214af0 sp 0x7ffd12214ae8
> > WRITE of size 4 at 0x6020000000c0 thread T0
> > SCARINESS: 46 (4-byte-write-heap-buffer-overflow-far-from-bounds)
> > #0 0x5a7b45 in bpf_object__elf_collect /src/libbpf/src/libbpf.c:3414:24
> > #1 0x5733c0 in bpf_object_open /src/libbpf/src/libbpf.c:7223:16
> > #2 0x5739fd in bpf_object__open_mem /src/libbpf/src/libbpf.c:7263:20
> > ...
> >
> > The issue lie in libbpf's direct use of e_shnum field in ELF header as
> > the section header count. Where as libelf implemented an extra logic
> > that, when e_shnum == 0 && e_shoff != 0, will use sh_size member of the
> > initial section header as the real section header count (part of ELF
> > spec to accommodate situation where section header counter is larger
> > than SHN_LORESERVE).
> >
> > The above inconsistency lead to libbpf writing into a zero-entry calloc
> > area. So intead of using e_shnum directly, use the elf_getshdrnum()
> > helper provided by libelf to retrieve the section header counter into
> > sec_cnt.
> >
> > The Linux kernel CVE team has assigned CVE-2022-50450 to this issue.
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> I'd like to dispute this CVE. The libbpf maintainer previously suggested
> such issue are viewed as normal bug fix, and not be considered for CVE
> assignment[1,2].
>
> Quoting Andrii from previous discussion in "CVE-2023-52592: libbpf: Fix
> NULL pointer dereference in bpf_object__collect_prog_relos"[1] below:
>
> > Libbpf isn't meant to be fed untrusted ELF files, as it's normally
> > used under root to perform BPF operations. So we generally treat these
> > issues of malformed ELF crashing libbpf as just normal bugs, not as a
> > security vulnerability. We even had issues where libelf crashed before
> > libbpf could do anything at all. But this happens only for
> > fuzzer-generated artificial test cases. In practice compilers produce
> > valid ELFs and that's what real world applications are ever going to
> > use.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > tl;dr: I wouldn't assign CVE for such issues, thanks.
Very good point, sorry about that. I should have caught this in the
re-review of these, my fault. Will go reject this now, thanks for the
review!
greg k-h
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-09 5:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <2025100116-CVE-2022-50450-7ef7@gregkh>
2025-10-09 5:31 ` CVE-2022-50450: libbpf: Use elf_getshdrnum() instead of e_shnum Shung-Hsi Yu
2025-10-09 5:55 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman [this message]
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=2025100912-ambiguity-emblem-1f96@gregkh \
--to=gregkh@kernel.org \
--cc=cve@kernel.org \
--cc=joao.povoas@suse.com \
--cc=linux-cve-announce@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shung-hsi.yu@suse.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