linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4,bpf-next] bpf: Don't redirect packets with invalid pkt

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: <Y0mUjLXEpVuheSUc@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Oct 2022 09:55:40 -0700
From:   sdf@...gle.com
To:     Lorenz Bauer <oss@....io>
Cc:     shaozhengchao <shaozhengchao@...wei.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yuehaibing@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4,bpf-next] bpf: Don't redirect packets with invalid pkt_len

On 10/14, Lorenz Bauer wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022, at 11:44, shaozhengchao wrote:
> > 	Sorry, I haven't fully understood your intentions yet.
> > Can you explain it more detail?

> I'll try! Roughly, we do the following:

> 1. Create a BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER program that just returns 0
> 2. Load the program into the kernel
> 3. Call BPF_PROG_RUN with data_size_in == 14

> After your bugfix, it seems like step 3 is rejected due to data_size_in  
> == 14. We had to increase data_size_in to 15 to
> avoid this, see [0].

> This breaks user space, so it would be great if you could fix this in a  
> way that doesn't refuse BPF_PROG_RUN with

[..]

> data_size_in == 14. Since I don't understand the original problem very  
> well I can't tell you what the best fix is however.

The problem was that we were able to generate skb with len=0 via
BPF_PROG_RUN. Prohibiting those cases breaks backwards compatibility, so
we either have to:

a) (preferred?) accept inputs with <14, but maybe internally pad to 14
bytes to make the core stack happy
b) revert the patch and instead have length checks at runtime; doesn't seem  
to
be worth the penalty in the forwarding path because of some corner cases
like these ?


> 0:  
> https://github.com/cilium/ebpf/commit/a38fb6b5a46ab3b5639ea4d421232a10013596c0

> Thanks
> Lorenz