linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.14 09/53] bpf: Fix the off-by-two error in range markings

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <20211213092928.669463787@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 13 Dec 2021 10:29:48 +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, Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...dia.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: [PATCH 4.14 09/53] bpf: Fix the off-by-two error in range markings

From: Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...dia.com>

commit 2fa7d94afc1afbb4d702760c058dc2d7ed30f226 upstream.

The first commit cited below attempts to fix the off-by-one error that
appeared in some comparisons with an open range. Due to this error,
arithmetically equivalent pieces of code could get different verdicts
from the verifier, for example (pseudocode):

  // 1. Passes the verifier:
  if (data + 8 > data_end)
      return early
  read *(u64 *)data, i.e. [data; data+7]

  // 2. Rejected by the verifier (should still pass):
  if (data + 7 >= data_end)
      return early
  read *(u64 *)data, i.e. [data; data+7]

The attempted fix, however, shifts the range by one in a wrong
direction, so the bug not only remains, but also such piece of code
starts failing in the verifier:

  // 3. Rejected by the verifier, but the check is stricter than in #1.
  if (data + 8 >= data_end)
      return early
  read *(u64 *)data, i.e. [data; data+7]

The change performed by that fix converted an off-by-one bug into
off-by-two. The second commit cited below added the BPF selftests
written to ensure than code chunks like #3 are rejected, however,
they should be accepted.

This commit fixes the off-by-two error by adjusting new_range in the
right direction and fixes the tests by changing the range into the
one that should actually fail.

Fixes: fb2a311a31d3 ("bpf: fix off by one for range markings with L{T, E} patterns")
Fixes: b37242c773b2 ("bpf: add test cases to bpf selftests to cover all access tests")
Signed-off-by: Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...dia.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211130181607.593149-1-maximmi@nvidia.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -2989,7 +2989,7 @@ static void find_good_pkt_pointers(struc
 
 	new_range = dst_reg->off;
 	if (range_right_open)
-		new_range--;
+		new_range++;
 
 	/* Examples for register markings:
 	 *