linux-kernel - Re: NULL pointer deref when running BPF monitor program (6.11.0-rc1)

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: <ZrHL3YU1kfth3enJ@jlelli-thinkpadt14gen4.remote.csb>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 09:08:13 +0200
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Artem Savkov <asavkov@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: NULL pointer deref when running BPF monitor program (6.11.0-rc1)

Hi Jiri and Alexei,

On 05/08/24 10:00, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 9:50 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 11:20:11AM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > > [  154.566882] BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 000000000000040c
> > > [  154.573844] #PF: supervisor read access in kernel mode
> > > [  154.578982] #PF: error_code(0x0000) - not-present page
> > > [  154.584122] PGD 146fff067 P4D 146fff067 PUD 10fc00067 PMD 0
> > > [  154.589780] Oops: Oops: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP NOPTI
> > > [  154.594659] CPU: 28 UID: 0 PID: 2234 Comm: thread0-13 Kdump: loaded Not tainted 6.11.0-rc1 #8
> > > [  154.603179] Hardware name: Dell Inc. PowerEdge R740/04FC42, BIOS 2.10.2 02/24/2021
> > > [  154.610744] RIP: 0010:bpf_prog_ec8173ca2868eb50_handle__sched_pi_setprio+0x22/0xd7
> > > [  154.618310] Code: cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc 0f 1f 44 00 00 66 90 55 48 89 e5 48 81 ec 30 00 00 00 53 41 55 41 56 48 89 fb 4c 8b 6b 00 4c 8b 73 08 <41> 8b be 0c 04 00 00 48 83 ff 06 0f 85 9b 00 00 00 41 8b be c0 09
> > > [  154.637052] RSP: 0018:ffffabac60aebbc0 EFLAGS: 00010086
> > > [  154.642278] RAX: ffffffffc03fba5c RBX: ffffabac60aebc28 RCX: 000000000000001f
> > > [  154.649411] RDX: ffff95a90b4e4180 RSI: ffffabac4e639048 RDI: ffffabac60aebc28
> > > [  154.656544] RBP: ffffabac60aebc08 R08: 00000023fce7674a R09: ffff95a91d85af38
> > > [  154.663674] R10: ffff95a91d85a0c0 R11: 000000003357e518 R12: 0000000000000000
> > > [  154.670807] R13: ffff95a90b4e4180 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000000001
> > > [  154.677939] FS:  00007ffa6d600640(0000) GS:ffff95c01bf00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> > > [  154.686026] CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> > > [  154.691769] CR2: 000000000000040c CR3: 000000014b9f2005 CR4: 00000000007706f0
> > > [  154.698903] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> > > [  154.706035] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> > > [  154.713168] PKRU: 55555554
> > > [  154.715879] Call Trace:
> > > [  154.718332]  <TASK>
> > > [  154.720439]  ? __die+0x20/0x70
> > > [  154.723498]  ? page_fault_oops+0x75/0x170
> > > [  154.727508]  ? sysvec_irq_work+0xb/0x90
> > > [  154.731348]  ? exc_page_fault+0x64/0x140
> > > [  154.735275]  ? asm_exc_page_fault+0x22/0x30
> > > [  154.739461]  ? 0xffffffffc03fba5c
> > > [  154.742780]  ? bpf_prog_ec8173ca2868eb50_handle__sched_pi_setprio+0x22/0xd7
> >
> > hi,
> > reproduced.. AFAICS looks like the bpf program somehow lost the booster != NULL
> > check and just load the policy field without it and crash when booster is rubbish
> >
> > int handle__sched_pi_setprio(u64 * ctx):
> > ; int handle__sched_pi_setprio(u64 *ctx)
> >    0: (bf) r6 = r1
> > ; struct task_struct *boosted = (void *) ctx[0];
> >    1: (79) r7 = *(u64 *)(r6 +0)
> > ; struct task_struct *booster = (void *) ctx[1];
> >    2: (79) r8 = *(u64 *)(r6 +8)
> > ; if (booster->policy != SCHED_DEADLINE)
> >
> > curious why the check disappeared, because object file has it, so I guess verifier
> > took it out for some reason, will check
> 
> Juri,
> 
> Thanks for flagging!

Thanks for the super quick reply from both of you!

> Jiri,
> 
> the verifier removes the check because it assumes that pointers
> passed by the kernel into tracepoint are valid and trusted.
> In this case:
>         trace_sched_pi_setprio(p, pi_task);
> 
> pi_task can be NULL.
> 
> We cannot make all tracepoint pointers to be PTR_TRUSTED | PTR_MAYBE_NULL
> by default, since it will break a bunch of progs.
> Instead we can annotate this tracepoint arg as __nullable and
> teach the verifier to recognize such special arguments of tracepoints.
> 
> Let's think how to workaround such verifier eagerness to remove != null check.

Of course more than willing to test anything out, but no rush.

Best,
Juri