linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.9 66/66] bpf: reject stores into ctx via st and xadd

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

Message-Id: <20180129123843.369270247@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 29 Jan 2018 13:57:30 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org,
        "ast@...nel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org, Daniel Borkmann" 
        <daniel@...earbox.net>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: [PATCH 4.9 66/66] bpf: reject stores into ctx via st and xadd

4.9-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>

[ upstream commit f37a8cb84cce18762e8f86a70bd6a49a66ab964c ]

Alexei found that verifier does not reject stores into context
via BPF_ST instead of BPF_STX. And while looking at it, we
also should not allow XADD variant of BPF_STX.

The context rewriter is only assuming either BPF_LDX_MEM- or
BPF_STX_MEM-type operations, thus reject anything other than
that so that assumptions in the rewriter properly hold. Add
test cases as well for BPF selftests.

Fixes: d691f9e8d440 ("bpf: allow programs to write to certain skb fields")
Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c |   19 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)

--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -702,6 +702,13 @@ static bool is_pointer_value(struct bpf_
 	return __is_pointer_value(env->allow_ptr_leaks, &env->cur_state.regs[regno]);
 }
 
+static bool is_ctx_reg(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno)
+{
+	const struct bpf_reg_state *reg = &env->cur_state.regs[regno];
+
+	return reg->type == PTR_TO_CTX;
+}
+
 static int check_ptr_alignment(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 			       struct bpf_reg_state *reg, int off, int size)
 {
@@ -896,6 +903,12 @@ static int check_xadd(struct bpf_verifie
 		return -EACCES;
 	}
 
+	if (is_ctx_reg(env, insn->dst_reg)) {
+		verbose("BPF_XADD stores into R%d context is not allowed\n",
+			insn->dst_reg);
+		return -EACCES;
+	}
+
 	/* check whether atomic_add can read the memory */
 	err = check_mem_access(env, insn->dst_reg, insn->off,
 			       BPF_SIZE(insn->code), BPF_READ, -1);
@@ -3012,6 +3025,12 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_
 			if (err)
 				return err;
 
+			if (is_ctx_reg(env, insn->dst_reg)) {
+				verbose("BPF_ST stores into R%d context is not allowed\n",
+					insn->dst_reg);
+				return -EACCES;
+			}
+
 			/* check that memory (dst_reg + off) is writeable */
 			err = check_mem_access(env, insn->dst_reg, insn->off,
 					       BPF_SIZE(insn->code), BPF_WRITE,