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: <20241004181828.3669209-3-sashal@kernel.org>
Date: Fri,  4 Oct 2024 14:16:20 -0400
From: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>,
	Zac Ecob <zacecob@...tonmail.com>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
	Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
	daniel@...earbox.net,
	bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH AUTOSEL 6.11 03/76] bpf: Fix a sdiv overflow issue

From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>

[ Upstream commit 7dd34d7b7dcf9309fc6224caf4dd5b35bedddcb7 ]

Zac Ecob reported a problem where a bpf program may cause kernel crash due
to the following error:
  Oops: divide error: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN PTI

The failure is due to the below signed divide:
  LLONG_MIN/-1 where LLONG_MIN equals to -9,223,372,036,854,775,808.
LLONG_MIN/-1 is supposed to give a positive number 9,223,372,036,854,775,808,
but it is impossible since for 64-bit system, the maximum positive
number is 9,223,372,036,854,775,807. On x86_64, LLONG_MIN/-1 will
cause a kernel exception. On arm64, the result for LLONG_MIN/-1 is
LLONG_MIN.

Further investigation found all the following sdiv/smod cases may trigger
an exception when bpf program is running on x86_64 platform:
  - LLONG_MIN/-1 for 64bit operation
  - INT_MIN/-1 for 32bit operation
  - LLONG_MIN%-1 for 64bit operation
  - INT_MIN%-1 for 32bit operation
where -1 can be an immediate or in a register.

On arm64, there are no exceptions:
  - LLONG_MIN/-1 = LLONG_MIN
  - INT_MIN/-1 = INT_MIN
  - LLONG_MIN%-1 = 0
  - INT_MIN%-1 = 0
where -1 can be an immediate or in a register.

Insn patching is needed to handle the above cases and the patched codes
produced results aligned with above arm64 result. The below are pseudo
codes to handle sdiv/smod exceptions including both divisor -1 and divisor 0
and the divisor is stored in a register.

sdiv:
      tmp = rX
      tmp += 1 /* [-1, 0] -> [0, 1]
      if tmp >(unsigned) 1 goto L2
      if tmp == 0 goto L1
      rY = 0
  L1:
      rY = -rY;
      goto L3
  L2:
      rY /= rX
  L3:

smod:
      tmp = rX
      tmp += 1 /* [-1, 0] -> [0, 1]
      if tmp >(unsigned) 1 goto L1
      if tmp == 1 (is64 ? goto L2 : goto L3)
      rY = 0;
      goto L2
  L1:
      rY %= rX
  L2:
      goto L4  // only when !is64
  L3:
      wY = wY  // only when !is64
  L4:

  [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/tPJLTEh7S_DxFEqAI2Ji5MBSoZVg7_G-Py2iaZpAaWtM961fFTWtsnlzwvTbzBzaUzwQAoNATXKUlt0LZOFgnDcIyKCswAnAGdUF3LBrhGQ=@protonmail.com/

Reported-by: Zac Ecob <zacecob@...tonmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240913150326.1187788-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 93 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 89 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index d8520095ca030..f3e6b0c17a8b9 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -19911,13 +19911,46 @@ static int do_misc_fixups(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 			/* Convert BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64 to 32-bit ALU */
 			insn->code = BPF_ALU | BPF_OP(insn->code) | BPF_SRC(insn->code);
 
-		/* Make divide-by-zero exceptions impossible. */
+		/* Make sdiv/smod divide-by-minus-one exceptions impossible. */
+		if ((insn->code == (BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_K) ||
+		     insn->code == (BPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_K) ||
+		     insn->code == (BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD | BPF_K) ||
+		     insn->code == (BPF_ALU | BPF_DIV | BPF_K)) &&
+		    insn->off == 1 && insn->imm == -1) {
+			bool is64 = BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64;
+			bool isdiv = BPF_OP(insn->code) == BPF_DIV;
+			struct bpf_insn *patchlet;
+			struct bpf_insn chk_and_sdiv[] = {
+				BPF_RAW_INSN((is64 ? BPF_ALU64 : BPF_ALU) |
+					     BPF_NEG | BPF_K, insn->dst_reg,
+					     0, 0, 0),
+			};
+			struct bpf_insn chk_and_smod[] = {
+				BPF_MOV32_IMM(insn->dst_reg, 0),
+			};
+
+			patchlet = isdiv ? chk_and_sdiv : chk_and_smod;
+			cnt = isdiv ? ARRAY_SIZE(chk_and_sdiv) : ARRAY_SIZE(chk_and_smod);
+
+			new_prog = bpf_patch_insn_data(env, i + delta, patchlet, cnt);
+			if (!new_prog)
+				return -ENOMEM;
+
+			delta    += cnt - 1;
+			env->prog = prog = new_prog;
+			insn      = new_prog->insnsi + i + delta;
+			goto next_insn;
+		}
+
+		/* Make divide-by-zero and divide-by-minus-one exceptions impossible. */
 		if (insn->code == (BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_X) ||
 		    insn->code == (BPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_X) ||
 		    insn->code == (BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD | BPF_X) ||
 		    insn->code == (BPF_ALU | BPF_DIV | BPF_X)) {
 			bool is64 = BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64;
 			bool isdiv = BPF_OP(insn->code) == BPF_DIV;
+			bool is_sdiv = isdiv && insn->off == 1;
+			bool is_smod = !isdiv && insn->off == 1;
 			struct bpf_insn *patchlet;
 			struct bpf_insn chk_and_div[] = {
 				/* [R,W]x div 0 -> 0 */
@@ -19937,10 +19970,62 @@ static int do_misc_fixups(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 				BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 1),
 				BPF_MOV32_REG(insn->dst_reg, insn->dst_reg),
 			};
+			struct bpf_insn chk_and_sdiv[] = {
+				/* [R,W]x sdiv 0 -> 0
+				 * LLONG_MIN sdiv -1 -> LLONG_MIN
+				 * INT_MIN sdiv -1 -> INT_MIN
+				 */
+				BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_AX, insn->src_reg),
+				BPF_RAW_INSN((is64 ? BPF_ALU64 : BPF_ALU) |
+					     BPF_ADD | BPF_K, BPF_REG_AX,
+					     0, 0, 1),
+				BPF_RAW_INSN((is64 ? BPF_JMP : BPF_JMP32) |
+					     BPF_JGT | BPF_K, BPF_REG_AX,
+					     0, 4, 1),
+				BPF_RAW_INSN((is64 ? BPF_JMP : BPF_JMP32) |
+					     BPF_JEQ | BPF_K, BPF_REG_AX,
+					     0, 1, 0),
+				BPF_RAW_INSN((is64 ? BPF_ALU64 : BPF_ALU) |
+					     BPF_MOV | BPF_K, insn->dst_reg,
+					     0, 0, 0),
+				/* BPF_NEG(LLONG_MIN) == -LLONG_MIN == LLONG_MIN */
+				BPF_RAW_INSN((is64 ? BPF_ALU64 : BPF_ALU) |
+					     BPF_NEG | BPF_K, insn->dst_reg,
+					     0, 0, 0),
+				BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 1),
+				*insn,
+			};
+			struct bpf_insn chk_and_smod[] = {
+				/* [R,W]x mod 0 -> [R,W]x */
+				/* [R,W]x mod -1 -> 0 */
+				BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_AX, insn->src_reg),
+				BPF_RAW_INSN((is64 ? BPF_ALU64 : BPF_ALU) |
+					     BPF_ADD | BPF_K, BPF_REG_AX,
+					     0, 0, 1),
+				BPF_RAW_INSN((is64 ? BPF_JMP : BPF_JMP32) |
+					     BPF_JGT | BPF_K, BPF_REG_AX,
+					     0, 3, 1),
+				BPF_RAW_INSN((is64 ? BPF_JMP : BPF_JMP32) |
+					     BPF_JEQ | BPF_K, BPF_REG_AX,
+					     0, 3 + (is64 ? 0 : 1), 1),
+				BPF_MOV32_IMM(insn->dst_reg, 0),
+				BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 1),
+				*insn,
+				BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 1),
+				BPF_MOV32_REG(insn->dst_reg, insn->dst_reg),
+			};
 
-			patchlet = isdiv ? chk_and_div : chk_and_mod;
-			cnt = isdiv ? ARRAY_SIZE(chk_and_div) :
-				      ARRAY_SIZE(chk_and_mod) - (is64 ? 2 : 0);
+			if (is_sdiv) {
+				patchlet = chk_and_sdiv;
+				cnt = ARRAY_SIZE(chk_and_sdiv);
+			} else if (is_smod) {
+				patchlet = chk_and_smod;
+				cnt = ARRAY_SIZE(chk_and_smod) - (is64 ? 2 : 0);
+			} else {
+				patchlet = isdiv ? chk_and_div : chk_and_mod;
+				cnt = isdiv ? ARRAY_SIZE(chk_and_div) :
+					      ARRAY_SIZE(chk_and_mod) - (is64 ? 2 : 0);
+			}
 
 			new_prog = bpf_patch_insn_data(env, i + delta, patchlet, cnt);
 			if (!new_prog)
-- 
2.43.0


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ