linux-kernel - Re: [iovisor-dev] [PATCH v3 net-next 02/12] bpf/verifier: rework value tracking

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <fbd2b381-c444-a736-2d9e-aa83d6153178@solarflare.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Jul 2017 18:02:02 +0100
From:   Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
To:     Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
CC:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        "Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@...earbox.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        iovisor-dev <iovisor-dev@...ts.iovisor.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [iovisor-dev] [PATCH v3 net-next 02/12] bpf/verifier: rework
 value tracking

On 12/07/17 23:07, Nadav Amit wrote:
> Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com> wrote:
>> In this specific case, there was a bug before: if (say) src and dst were
>> both unknown bytes (so range 0 to 255), it would compute the new min and max
>> to be 0, so it would think the result is known to be 0.  But that's wrong,
>> because it could be anything from -255 to +255.  The bug's implications are
>> that it could be used to construct an out-of-range offset to (say) a map
>> pointer which the verifier would think was in-range and thus accept.
> This sounds like a serious bug that may need to be backported to stable
> versions, no? In this case I would assume it should be in a separate patch
> so it could be applied separately.
Having looked deeper into this in attempting to create a test that the existing
 verifier would fail, it turns out that in the existing verifier that BPF_SUB
 handling is dead code.  If (for instance) we subtract an UNKNOWN_VALUE from a
 PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_ADJ, that code will be run, but afterwards we will
 mark_reg_unknown_value() the register (bottom of check_alu_op()) making our
 previous min/max determination irrelevant.
So there's nothing to backport, and if I did change this in its own patch,
 there'd be no way to test it.  (I have, however, added a test covering this
 codepath in the new verifier.)

-Ed