linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] bpf: hashtab: fix 32-bit overflow in memory usage calculation

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: <CALOAHbCz+9T349GCmyMkork=Nc_08OnXCoVCz+WO0kdXgx3MDA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2025 16:20:59 +0800
From: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
To: David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>, Alexei Safin <a.safin@...a.ru>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, 
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, 
	Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, 
	Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, 
	KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, 
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	lvc-patches@...uxtesting.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] bpf: hashtab: fix 32-bit overflow in memory usage calculation

On Sun, Nov 9, 2025 at 11:00 AM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 7:41 PM David Laight
> <david.laight.linux@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri,  7 Nov 2025 13:03:05 +0300
> > Alexei Safin <a.safin@...a.ru> wrote:
> >
> > > The intermediate product value_size * num_possible_cpus() is evaluated
> > > in 32-bit arithmetic and only then promoted to 64 bits. On systems with
> > > large value_size and many possible CPUs this can overflow and lead to
> > > an underestimated memory usage.
> > >
> > > Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.
> >
> > That code is insane.
> > The size being calculated looks like a kernel memory size.
> > You really don't want to be allocating single structures that exceed 4GB.
>
> I failed to get your point.
> The calculation `value_size * num_possible_cpus() * num_entries` can
> overflow. While the creation of a hashmap limits `value_size *
> num_entries` to U32_MAX, this new formula can easily exceed that
> limit. For example, on my test server with just 64 CPUs, the following
> operation will trigger an overflow:
>
>           map_fd = bpf_map_create(BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_HASH, "count_map", 4, 4,
>                                                      1 << 27, &map_opts)

Upon reviewing the code, I see that `num_entries` is declared as u64,
which prevents overflow in the calculation `value_size *
num_possible_cpus() * num_entries`. Therefore, this change is
unnecessary.

It seems that the Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) needs
to be improved ;-)

-- 
Regards
Yafang