linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/2] bpf: verifier: Support eliding map lookup nullness

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAADnVQKZ1MkBttCKsOMh7nNXNP4OVxGdYLnJuXjNFLPUv3Bm6w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 10:24:01 +0200
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, 
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Eddy Z <eddyz87@...il.com>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, 
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, 
	Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, 
	Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, 
	Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, 
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, Kernel Team <kernel-team@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/2] bpf: verifier: Support eliding map lookup nullness

On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 12:40 PM Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz> wrote:
>
> +
> +/* Returns constant key value if possible, else -1 */
> +static long get_constant_map_key(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> +                                struct bpf_reg_state *key)
> +{
> +       struct bpf_func_state *state = func(env, key);
> +       struct bpf_reg_state *reg;
> +       int stack_off;
> +       int slot;
> +       int spi;
> +
> +       if (key->type != PTR_TO_STACK)
> +               return -1;
> +       if (!tnum_is_const(key->var_off))
> +               return -1;
> +
> +       stack_off = key->off + key->var_off.value;
> +       slot = -stack_off - 1;
> +       if (slot < 0)
> +               /* Stack grew upwards */

The comment is misleading.
The verifier is supposed to catch this.
It's just this helper was called before the stack bounds
were checked?
Maybe the call can be done later?

> +               return -1;
> +       else if (slot >= state->allocated_stack)
> +               /* Stack uninitialized */
> +               return -1;
> +
> +       spi = slot / BPF_REG_SIZE;
> +       reg = &state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr;
> +       if (!tnum_is_const(reg->var_off))
> +               /* Stack value not statically known */
> +               return -1;
> +
> +       return reg->var_off.value;
> +}

Looks like the code is more subtle than it looks.

I think it's better to guard it all with CAP_BPF.

pw-bot: cr