netdev - [PATCH bpf 2/9] bpf: fix incorrect sign extension in check_alu

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: <20171219041201.1979983-3-ast@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:11:54 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
To:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf 2/9] bpf: fix incorrect sign extension in check_alu_op()

From: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>

Distinguish between
BPF_ALU64|BPF_MOV|BPF_K (load 32-bit immediate, sign-extended to 64-bit)
and BPF_ALU|BPF_MOV|BPF_K (load 32-bit immediate, zero-padded to 64-bit);
only perform sign extension in the first case.

Starting with v4.14, this is exploitable by unprivileged users as long as
the unprivileged_bpf_disabled sysctl isn't set.

Debian assigned CVE-2017-16995 for this issue.

v3:
 - add CVE number (Ben Hutchings)

Fixes: 484611357c19 ("bpf: allow access into map value arrays")
Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Acked-by: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 8 +++++++-
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 625e358ca765..c086010ae51e 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -2408,7 +2408,13 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn)
 			 * remember the value we stored into this reg
 			 */
 			regs[insn->dst_reg].type = SCALAR_VALUE;
-			__mark_reg_known(regs + insn->dst_reg, insn->imm);
+			if (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64) {
+				__mark_reg_known(regs + insn->dst_reg,
+						 insn->imm);
+			} else {
+				__mark_reg_known(regs + insn->dst_reg,
+						 (u32)insn->imm);
+			}
 		}
 
 	} else if (opcode > BPF_END) {
-- 
2.9.5