[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <87609-531187-curtm@phaethon>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2021 15:01:57 +0000
From: Kurt Manucredo <fuzzybritches0@...il.com>
To: syzbot+bed360704c521841c85d@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Cc: andrii@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
daniel@...earbox.net, davem@...emloft.net, hawk@...nel.org,
john.fastabend@...il.com, kafai@...com, kpsingh@...nel.org,
kuba@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, songliubraving@...com,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, yhs@...com, nathan@...nel.org,
ndesaulniers@...gle.com, clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com,
linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
skhan@...uxfoundation.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
Kurt Manucredo <fuzzybritches0@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH v4] bpf: core: fix shift-out-of-bounds in ___bpf_prog_run
Syzbot detects a shift-out-of-bounds in ___bpf_prog_run()
kernel/bpf/core.c:1414:2.
I propose: In adjust_scalar_min_max_vals() move boundary check up to avoid
missing them and return with error when detected.
Reported-and-tested-by: syzbot+bed360704c521841c85d@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Kurt Manucredo <fuzzybritches0@...il.com>
---
https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=edb51be4c9a320186328893287bb30d5eed09231
Changelog:
----------
v4 - Fix shift-out-of-bounds in adjust_scalar_min_max_vals.
Fix commit message.
v3 - Make it clearer what the fix is for.
v2 - Fix shift-out-of-bounds in ___bpf_prog_run() by adding boundary
check in check_alu_op() in verifier.c.
v1 - Fix shift-out-of-bounds in ___bpf_prog_run() by adding boundary
check in ___bpf_prog_run().
thanks
kind regards
Kurt
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 30 +++++++++---------------------
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 94ba5163d4c5..ed0eecf20de5 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -7510,6 +7510,15 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
u32_min_val = src_reg.u32_min_value;
u32_max_val = src_reg.u32_max_value;
+ if ((opcode == BPF_LSH || opcode == BPF_RSH || opcode == BPF_ARSH) &&
+ umax_val >= insn_bitness) {
+ /* Shifts greater than 31 or 63 are undefined.
+ * This includes shifts by a negative number.
+ */
+ verbose(env, "invalid shift %lld\n", umax_val);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
if (alu32) {
src_known = tnum_subreg_is_const(src_reg.var_off);
if ((src_known &&
@@ -7592,39 +7601,18 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
scalar_min_max_xor(dst_reg, &src_reg);
break;
case BPF_LSH:
- if (umax_val >= insn_bitness) {
- /* Shifts greater than 31 or 63 are undefined.
- * This includes shifts by a negative number.
- */
- mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, insn->dst_reg);
- break;
- }
if (alu32)
scalar32_min_max_lsh(dst_reg, &src_reg);
else
scalar_min_max_lsh(dst_reg, &src_reg);
break;
case BPF_RSH:
- if (umax_val >= insn_bitness) {
- /* Shifts greater than 31 or 63 are undefined.
- * This includes shifts by a negative number.
- */
- mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, insn->dst_reg);
- break;
- }
if (alu32)
scalar32_min_max_rsh(dst_reg, &src_reg);
else
scalar_min_max_rsh(dst_reg, &src_reg);
break;
case BPF_ARSH:
- if (umax_val >= insn_bitness) {
- /* Shifts greater than 31 or 63 are undefined.
- * This includes shifts by a negative number.
- */
- mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, insn->dst_reg);
- break;
- }
if (alu32)
scalar32_min_max_arsh(dst_reg, &src_reg);
else
--
2.30.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists