linux-kernel - [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Fix tnum_overlap to check for zero mask first

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: <20251026163806.3300636-2-kafai.wan@linux.dev>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 00:38:05 +0800
From: KaFai Wan <kafai.wan@...ux.dev>
To: ast@...nel.org,
	daniel@...earbox.net,
	john.fastabend@...il.com,
	andrii@...nel.org,
	martin.lau@...ux.dev,
	eddyz87@...il.com,
	song@...nel.org,
	yonghong.song@...ux.dev,
	kpsingh@...nel.org,
	sdf@...ichev.me,
	haoluo@...gle.com,
	jolsa@...nel.org,
	shuah@...nel.org,
	paul.chaignon@...il.com,
	m.shachnai@...il.com,
	memxor@...il.com,
	harishankar.vishwanathan@...il.com,
	colin.i.king@...il.com,
	kafai.wan@...ux.dev,
	luis.gerhorst@....de,
	shung-hsi.yu@...e.com,
	bpf@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Cc: syzbot+c950cc277150935cc0b5@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Fix tnum_overlap to check for zero mask first

Syzbot reported a kernel warning due to a range invariant violation in
the BPF verifier. The issue occurs when tnum_overlap() fails to detect
that two tnums don't have any overlapping bits.

The problematic BPF program:
   0: call bpf_get_prandom_u32
   1: r6 = r0
   2: r6 &= 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF0
   3: r7 = r0
   4: r7 &= 0x07
   5: r7 -= 0xFF
   6: if r6 == r7 goto <exit>

After instruction 5, R7 has the range:
   R7: u64=[0xffffffffffffff01, 0xffffffffffffff08] var_off=(0xffffffffffffff00; 0xf)

R6 and R7 don't overlap since they have no agreeing bits. However,
is_branch_taken() fails to recognize this, causing the verifier to
refine register bounds and end up with inconsistent bounds:

   6: if r6 == r7 goto <exit>
   R6: u64=[0xffffffffffffff01, 0xffffffffffffff00] var_off=(0xffffffffffffff00, 0x0)
   R7: u64=[0xffffffffffffff01, 0xffffffffffffff00] var_off=(0xffffffffffffff00, 0x0)

The root cause is that tnum_overlap() doesn't properly handle the case
where the masks have no overlapping bits.

Fix this by adding an early check for zero mask intersection in tnum_overlap().

Reported-by: syzbot+c950cc277150935cc0b5@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Fixes: f41345f47fb2 ("bpf: Use tnums for JEQ/JNE is_branch_taken logic")
Signed-off-by: KaFai Wan <kafai.wan@...ux.dev>
---
 kernel/bpf/tnum.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/tnum.c b/kernel/bpf/tnum.c
index f8e70e9c3998..af2f38b4f840 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/tnum.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/tnum.c
@@ -163,6 +163,8 @@ bool tnum_overlap(struct tnum a, struct tnum b)
 {
 	u64 mu;
 
+	if ((a.mask & b.mask) == 0)
+		return false;
 	mu = ~a.mask & ~b.mask;
 	return (a.value & mu) == (b.value & mu);
 }
-- 
2.43.0