[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20210608175931.434363550@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 20:27:12 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Frank van der Linden <fllinden@...zon.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.14 29/47] bpf: Ensure off_reg has no mixed signed bounds for all types
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
commit 24c109bb1537c12c02aeed2d51a347b4d6a9b76e upstream.
The mixed signed bounds check really belongs into retrieve_ptr_limit()
instead of outside of it in adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(). The reason is
that this check is not tied to PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE only, but to all pointer
types that we handle in retrieve_ptr_limit() and given errors from the latter
propagate back to adjust_ptr_min_max_vals() and lead to rejection of the
program, it's a better place to reside to avoid anything slipping through
for future types. The reason why we must reject such off_reg is that we
otherwise would not be able to derive a mask, see details in 9d7eceede769
("bpf: restrict unknown scalars of mixed signed bounds for unprivileged").
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Reviewed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
[fllinden@...zon.com: backport to 4.14]
Signed-off-by: Frank van der Linden <fllinden@...zon.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 19 +++++++++----------
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -2025,12 +2025,18 @@ static struct bpf_insn_aux_data *cur_aux
}
static int retrieve_ptr_limit(const struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg,
- u32 *ptr_limit, u8 opcode, bool off_is_neg)
+ const struct bpf_reg_state *off_reg,
+ u32 *ptr_limit, u8 opcode)
{
+ bool off_is_neg = off_reg->smin_value < 0;
bool mask_to_left = (opcode == BPF_ADD && off_is_neg) ||
(opcode == BPF_SUB && !off_is_neg);
u32 off, max;
+ if (!tnum_is_const(off_reg->var_off) &&
+ (off_reg->smin_value < 0) != (off_reg->smax_value < 0))
+ return -EACCES;
+
switch (ptr_reg->type) {
case PTR_TO_STACK:
/* Offset 0 is out-of-bounds, but acceptable start for the
@@ -2121,7 +2127,7 @@ static int sanitize_ptr_alu(struct bpf_v
alu_state |= ptr_is_dst_reg ?
BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_SRC : BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_DST;
- err = retrieve_ptr_limit(ptr_reg, &alu_limit, opcode, off_is_neg);
+ err = retrieve_ptr_limit(ptr_reg, off_reg, &alu_limit, opcode);
if (err < 0)
return err;
@@ -2164,8 +2170,8 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struc
smin_ptr = ptr_reg->smin_value, smax_ptr = ptr_reg->smax_value;
u64 umin_val = off_reg->umin_value, umax_val = off_reg->umax_value,
umin_ptr = ptr_reg->umin_value, umax_ptr = ptr_reg->umax_value;
- u32 dst = insn->dst_reg, src = insn->src_reg;
u8 opcode = BPF_OP(insn->code);
+ u32 dst = insn->dst_reg;
int ret;
dst_reg = ®s[dst];
@@ -2205,13 +2211,6 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struc
dst);
return -EACCES;
}
- if (ptr_reg->type == PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE) {
- if (!env->allow_ptr_leaks && !known && (smin_val < 0) != (smax_val < 0)) {
- verbose("R%d has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds, pointer arithmetic with it prohibited for !root\n",
- off_reg == dst_reg ? dst : src);
- return -EACCES;
- }
- }
/* In case of 'scalar += pointer', dst_reg inherits pointer type and id.
* The id may be overwritten later if we create a new variable offset.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists