Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf, sockmap: Fix af_unix null-ptr-deref in proto update

[Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>]

On 2/4/26 1:09 PM, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>
> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2026 11:34:55 -0800
>> On 2/4/26 7:41 AM, Michal Luczaj wrote:
>>>>>>>> If the concern is the bpf iterator prog may use a released unix_peer(sk)
>>>>>>>> pointer, it should be fine. The unix_peer(sk) pointer is not a trusted
>>>>>>>> pointer to the bpf prog, so nothing bad will happen other than
>>>>>>>> potentially reading incorrect values.
>>
>> I misremembered that following unix->peer would be marked as
>> (PTR_TO_BTF_ID | PTR_UNTRUSTED). I forgot there are some legacy supports
>> on the PTR_TO_BTF_ID (i.e. without PTR_UNTRUSTED marking).
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But if the prog passes a released peer pointer to a bpf helper:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in bpf_skc_to_unix_sock+0x95/0xb0
>>>>>>> Read of size 1 at addr ffff888110654c92 by task test_progs/1936
>>>>>
>>>>> hmm... bpf_skc_to_unix_sock is exposed to tracing. bpf_iter is a tracing
>>>>> bpf prog.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you cook a patch for this ? probably like below
>>>>>
>>>>> This can help the bpf_iter but not the other tracing prog such as fentry.
>>>>
>>>> Oh well ... then bpf_skc_to_unix_sock() can be used even
>>>> with SEQ_START_TOKEN at fentry of bpf_iter_unix_seq_show() ??
>>
>> It is fine. The type is void.
>>
>>>>
>>>> How about adding notrace to all af_unix bpf iterator functions ?
>>
>> but right, other functions taking [unix_]sock pointer could be audited.
>> I don't know af_unix well enough to assess the blast radius or whether
>> some useful functions may become untraceable.
> 
> Considering SOCK_DGRAM, the blast radus is much bigger than
> I thought, so I'd avoid this way if possible by modifying
> the verifier.
> 
> 
>>
>>>>
>>>> The procfs iterator holds a spinlock of the hashtable from
>>>> ->start/next() to ->stop() to prevent the race with unix_release_sock().
>>>>
>>>> I think other (non-iterator) functions cannot do such racy
>>>> access with tracing prog.
>>>
>>> But then there's SOCK_DGRAM where you can drop unix_peer(sk) without
>>> releasing sk; see AF_UNSPEC in unix_dgram_connect(). I think Martin is
>>> right, we can crash at many fentries.
>>>
>>> BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in bpf_skc_to_unix_sock+0xa4/0xb0
>>> Read of size 2 at addr ffff888147d38890 by task test_progs/2495
>>> Call Trace:
>>>    dump_stack_lvl+0x5d/0x80
>>>    print_report+0x170/0x4f3
>>>    kasan_report+0xe1/0x180
>>>    bpf_skc_to_unix_sock+0xa4/0xb0
>>>    bpf_prog_564a1c39c35d86a2_unix_shutdown_entry+0x8a/0x8e
>>>    bpf_trampoline_6442564662+0x47/0xab
>>>    unix_shutdown+0x9/0x880
>>>    __sys_shutdown+0xe1/0x160
>>>    __x64_sys_shutdown+0x52/0x90
>>>    do_syscall_64+0x6b/0x3a0
>>>    entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
>>
>> This probably is the first case where reading a sk pointer requires a
>> lock. I think it will need to be marked as PTR_UNTRUSTED in the verifier
>> for the unix->peer access, so that it cannot be passed to a helper.
>> There is a BTF_TYPE_SAFE_TRUSTED list. afaik, there is no untrusted one now.
> 
> Just skimmed the code, and I guess something like below would
> do that ?  and if needed, we could add another helper to fetch
> peer with a proper release function ?
> 
> ---8<---
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 3135643d5695..ef8b4dd21923 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -7177,6 +7177,14 @@ static bool type_is_rcu_or_null(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>   	return btf_nested_type_is_trusted(&env->log, reg, field_name, btf_id, "__safe_rcu_or_null");
>   }
>   
> +static bool type_is_untrusted(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> +			      struct bpf_reg_state *reg,
> +			      const char *field_name, u32 btf_id)
> +{
> +	/* TODO: return true if field_name and btf_id is unix_sock.peer. */
> +	return false;
> +}
> +
>   static bool type_is_trusted(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>   			    struct bpf_reg_state *reg,
>   			    const char *field_name, u32 btf_id)
> @@ -7307,7 +7315,9 @@ static int check_ptr_to_btf_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>   		 * A regular RCU-protected pointer with __rcu tag can also be deemed
>   		 * trusted if we are in an RCU CS. Such pointer can be NULL.
>   		 */
> -		if (type_is_trusted(env, reg, field_name, btf_id)) {
> +		if (type_is_untrusted(env, reg, field_name, btf_id)) {
> +			flag |= PTR_UNTRUSTED;

Something like this but I think the PTR_UNTRUSTED marking should be done 
right after the clear_trusted_flags() where it is for supporting the 
depreciated PTR_TO_BTF_ID. Before that ...

Alexei, can you advise if we should change the verifier to mark 
PTR_UNTRUSTED on unix_sock->peer or we can deprecate the bpf_skc_to_* 
helper support from tracing and ask the user to switch to bpf_core_cast 
(i.e. bpf_rdonly_cast) by using a WARN_ON_ONCE message?

The problem is that the unix_sock->peer pointer is not always valid when 
passing to the bpf_skc_to_* helpers, so it is a UAF.