linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 4/7] bpf: Attachment verification for BPF_MODIFY

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]

Date:   Wed, 4 Mar 2020 02:06:15 +0100
From:   KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>,
        Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 4/7] bpf: Attachment verification for
 BPF_MODIFY_RETURN

On 03-Mär 16:03, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 12:21:51AM +0100, KP Singh wrote:
> > 
> > > > +                       t = btf_type_skip_modifiers(btf, t->type, NULL);
> > > > +                       if (!btf_type_is_int(t)) {
> > > 
> > > Should the size of int be verified here? E.g., if some function
> > > returns u8, is that ok for BPF program to return, say, (1<<30) ?
> > 
> > Would this work?
> > 
> >        if (size != t->size) {
> >                bpf_log(log,
> >                        "size accessed = %d should be %d\n",
> >                        size, t->size);
> >                return false;
> >        }
> 
> It will cause spurious failures later when llvm optimizes
> if (ret & 0xff) into u8 load.
> I think btf_type_is_int() is enough as-is.

Okay skipping the size check.

- KP