| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20181201192844.qrdur3mdbcotyda4@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2018 11:28:46 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] bpf: uninitialized variables in test code
On Sat, Dec 01, 2018 at 07:13:50PM +0000, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 02:58:03PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 01:27:03PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > Smatch complains that if bpf_test_run() fails with -ENOMEM at the
> > > begining then the "duration" is uninitialized. We then copy the
> > > unintialized variables to the user inside the bpf_test_finish()
> > > function. The functions require CAP_SYS_ADMIN so it's not really an
> > > information leak.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 1cf1cae963c2 ("bpf: introduce BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN command")
> > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
> >
> > That is incorrect fixes tag.
> > It should be pointing to commit f42ee093be29 ("bpf/test_run: support cgroup local storage")
> >
> > bpf_test_run() can only return the value that bpf program returned.
> > It cannot return -ENOMEM.
> > That code needs to be refactored.
> > I think the proper way for bpf_test_run() would be to return 0 or -ENOMEM
> > and store bpf's retval into extra pointer.
> > Proper checks need to be added in the callers (bpf_prog_test_run_skb, etc).
>
> Makes total sense. How about this patch?
Thanks for the quick fix!
> Thanks!
>
> --
>
> From a2832f56c621d7809da8d4196877fa01621055f5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
> Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2018 10:39:44 -0800
> Subject: [PATCH bpf] bpf: refactor bpf_test_run() to separate own failures and
> test program result
>
> After commit f42ee093be29 ("bpf/test_run: support cgroup local
> storage") the bpf_test_run() function may fail with -ENOMEM, if
> it's not possible to allocate memory for a cgroup local storage.
>
> This error shouldn't be mixed with the return value of the testing
> program. Let's add an additional argument with a pointer where to
> store the testing program's result; and make bpf_test_run()
> return either 0 or -ENOMEM.
>
> Fixes: f42ee093be29 ("bpf/test_run: support cgroup local storage")
> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
> Suggested-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
> Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
> ---
> net/bpf/test_run.c | 21 +++++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/bpf/test_run.c b/net/bpf/test_run.c
> index c89c22c49015..8bce7d8d00d9 100644
> --- a/net/bpf/test_run.c
> +++ b/net/bpf/test_run.c
> @@ -28,12 +28,13 @@ static __always_inline u32 bpf_test_run_one(struct bpf_prog *prog, void *ctx,
> return ret;
> }
>
> -static u32 bpf_test_run(struct bpf_prog *prog, void *ctx, u32 repeat, u32 *time)
> +static u32 bpf_test_run(struct bpf_prog *prog, void *ctx, u32 repeat, u32 *ret,
> + u32 *time)
may be 'int' return value?
> {
> struct bpf_cgroup_storage *storage[MAX_BPF_CGROUP_STORAGE_TYPE] = { 0 };
> enum bpf_cgroup_storage_type stype;
> u64 time_start, time_spent = 0;
> - u32 ret = 0, i;
> + u32 i;
>
> for_each_cgroup_storage_type(stype) {
> storage[stype] = bpf_cgroup_storage_alloc(prog, stype);
> @@ -49,7 +50,7 @@ static u32 bpf_test_run(struct bpf_prog *prog, void *ctx, u32 repeat, u32 *time)
> repeat = 1;
> time_start = ktime_get_ns();
> for (i = 0; i < repeat; i++) {
> - ret = bpf_test_run_one(prog, ctx, storage);
> + *ret = bpf_test_run_one(prog, ctx, storage);
> if (need_resched()) {
> if (signal_pending(current))
> break;
> @@ -65,7 +66,7 @@ static u32 bpf_test_run(struct bpf_prog *prog, void *ctx, u32 repeat, u32 *time)
> for_each_cgroup_storage_type(stype)
> bpf_cgroup_storage_free(storage[stype]);
>
> - return ret;
> + return 0;
> }
>
> static int bpf_test_finish(const union bpf_attr *kattr,
> @@ -165,7 +166,12 @@ int bpf_prog_test_run_skb(struct bpf_prog *prog, const union bpf_attr *kattr,
> __skb_push(skb, hh_len);
> if (is_direct_pkt_access)
> bpf_compute_data_pointers(skb);
> - retval = bpf_test_run(prog, skb, repeat, &duration);
> + ret = bpf_test_run(prog, skb, repeat, &retval, &duration);
> + if (ret) {
> + kfree(data);
should probably be kfree_skb(skb); instead ?
> + kfree(sk);
> + return ret;
> + }
> if (!is_l2) {
> if (skb_headroom(skb) < hh_len) {
> int nhead = HH_DATA_ALIGN(hh_len - skb_headroom(skb));
> @@ -212,11 +218,14 @@ int bpf_prog_test_run_xdp(struct bpf_prog *prog, const union bpf_attr *kattr,
> rxqueue = __netif_get_rx_queue(current->nsproxy->net_ns->loopback_dev, 0);
> xdp.rxq = &rxqueue->xdp_rxq;
>
> - retval = bpf_test_run(prog, &xdp, repeat, &duration);
> + ret = bpf_test_run(prog, &xdp, repeat, &retval, &duration);
> + if (ret)
> + goto out;
> if (xdp.data != data + XDP_PACKET_HEADROOM + NET_IP_ALIGN ||
> xdp.data_end != xdp.data + size)
> size = xdp.data_end - xdp.data;
> ret = bpf_test_finish(kattr, uattr, xdp.data, size, retval, duration);
> +out:
> kfree(data);
> return ret;
> }
> --
> 2.17.2
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists