linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf RESEND 2/4] bpf: Remove size check for sk in bpf_skb_is_valid

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:   Thu, 3 Nov 2022 11:23:08 +0000
From:   "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Yang Jihong <yangjihong1@...wei.com>
Cc:     ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org,
        martin.lau@...ux.dev, song@...nel.org, yhs@...com,
        john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...gle.com,
        haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org, illusionist.neo@...il.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        pabeni@...hat.com, mykolal@...com, shuah@...nel.org,
        benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com, memxor@...il.com, delyank@...com,
        asavkov@...hat.com, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf RESEND 2/4] bpf: Remove size check for sk in
 bpf_skb_is_valid_access for 32-bit architecture

On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 05:21:16PM +0800, Yang Jihong wrote:
> The error code -EACCES is returned when bpf prog is tested in 32-bit environment,
> This is because bpf_object__relocate modifies the instruction to change memory
> size to 4 bytes, as shown in the following messages:
> 
> libbpf: prog 'kfunc_call_test1': relo #2: matching candidate #0 <byte_off> [18342] struct __sk_buff.sk (0:30:0 @ offset 168)
> libbpf: prog 'kfunc_call_test1': relo #2: patched insn #1 (LDX/ST/STX) off 168 -> 168
> libbpf: prog 'kfunc_call_test1': relo #2: patched insn #1 (LDX/ST/STX) mem_sz 8 -> 4
> 
> As a result, the bpf_skb_is_valid_access check fails. For 32-bit architecture,
> unnecessary checks need to be deleted.

Isn't the purpose of this check to ensure that the entire pointer is
written, and BPF can't write half of it?


>  	case offsetof(struct __sk_buff, sk):
> -		if (type == BPF_WRITE || size != sizeof(__u64))
> -			return false;

Wouldn't "(size != sizeof(struct bpf_sock *) && size != sizeof(__u64))"
be more appropriate here, so 32-bit can only write the 32-bit pointer
or the full 64-bit value, and 64-bit can only write the 64-bit pointer?
Or is there a reason not to? bpf folk?

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!