| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 09:48:56 -0800
From: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, songliubraving@...com,
yhs@...com, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: bpf: BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN leads to unkillable process
On 02/01, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The following program leads to an unkillable process that eats CPU in
> an infinite loop in BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN syscall. But kernel does not
> self-detect cpu/rcu/task stalls either. The program contains max
> number of repetitions, but as far as I see the intention is that it
> should be killable. I see that bpf_test_run() checks for
> signal_pending(current), but it does so only if need_resched() is also
> set. Can need_resched() be not set for prolonged periods of time?
> /proc/pid/stack is empty, not sure what other info I can provide.
There is a bunch of places in the kernel where we do the same nested check:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/tg3.c#n12059
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/char/hw_random/s390-trng.c#n80
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/char/random.c#n1049
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/s390/crypto/prng.c#n470
So it's not something unusual we do. OTOH, in the kernel/bpf/verifier.c
do_check() we do signal_pending() and need_resched() sequentially. In
theory, it should not hurt to do them in sequence. Any thoughts about
the patch below? I think we also need to properly return -ERESTARTSYS
when returning from signal_pending().
--
>From ce360c909ce4f3caf8eb69f2ad5ce0d3eee1515d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
Message-Id: <ce360c909ce4f3caf8eb69f2ad5ce0d3eee1515d.1549302207.git.sdf@...gle.com>
From: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 09:17:37 -0800
Subject: [PATCH bpf] bpf/test_run: properly handle signal_pending
Syzbot found out that running BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN with repeat=0xffffffff
makes process unkillable. Let's move signal_pending out of need_resched
and properly return -ERESTARTSYS to the userspace.
In the kernel/bpf/verifier.c do_check() we do:
if (signal_pending())
...
if (need_resched())
...
Reported-by: syzbot <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
---
net/bpf/test_run.c | 15 +++++++++------
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/bpf/test_run.c b/net/bpf/test_run.c
index fa2644d276ef..a891c60cf248 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 int bpf_test_run(struct bpf_prog *prog, void *ctx, u32 repeat, u32 *ret,
- u32 *time)
+static int bpf_test_run(struct bpf_prog *prog, void *ctx, u32 repeat,
+ u32 *retval, u32 *time)
{
struct bpf_cgroup_storage *storage[MAX_BPF_CGROUP_STORAGE_TYPE] = { 0 };
enum bpf_cgroup_storage_type stype;
u64 time_start, time_spent = 0;
+ int ret = 0;
u32 i;
for_each_cgroup_storage_type(stype) {
@@ -50,10 +51,12 @@ static int bpf_test_run(struct bpf_prog *prog, void *ctx, u32 repeat, u32 *ret,
repeat = 1;
time_start = ktime_get_ns();
for (i = 0; i < repeat; i++) {
- *ret = bpf_test_run_one(prog, ctx, storage);
+ *retval = bpf_test_run_one(prog, ctx, storage);
+ if (signal_pending(current)) {
+ ret = -ERESTARTSYS;
+ break;
+ }
if (need_resched()) {
- if (signal_pending(current))
- break;
time_spent += ktime_get_ns() - time_start;
cond_resched();
time_start = ktime_get_ns();
@@ -66,7 +69,7 @@ static int bpf_test_run(struct bpf_prog *prog, void *ctx, u32 repeat, u32 *ret,
for_each_cgroup_storage_type(stype)
bpf_cgroup_storage_free(storage[stype]);
- return 0;
+ return ret;
}
static int bpf_test_finish(const union bpf_attr *kattr,
>
> Tested is on upstream commit 4aa9fc2a435abe95a1e8d7f8c7b3d6356514b37a.
> Config is attached.
>
> FTR, generated from the following syzkaller program:
>
> r1 = bpf$PROG_LOAD(0x5, &(0x7f0000000080)={0x3, 0x3,
> &(0x7f0000001fd8)=@...med={{0xffffff85, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x13, 0x5}},
> &(0x7f0000000000)='\x00', 0x5, 0x487, &(0x7f000000cf3d)=""/195}, 0x48)
> bpf$BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN(0xa, &(0x7f0000000200)={r1, 0x0, 0xe, 0x0,
> &(0x7f0000000100)="8557147d6187677523fea28c88a8", 0x0,
> 0xfffffffffffffffe}, 0x28)
>
>
> // autogenerated by syzkaller (https://github.com/google/syzkaller)
> #define _GNU_SOURCE
> #include <endian.h>
> #include <stdint.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <string.h>
> #include <sys/syscall.h>
> #include <sys/types.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
>
> int main(void)
> {
> syscall(__NR_mmap, 0x20000000, 0x1000000, 3, 0x32, -1, 0);
> long res = 0;
> *(uint32_t*)0x20000080 = 3;
> *(uint32_t*)0x20000084 = 3;
> *(uint64_t*)0x20000088 = 0x20001fd8;
> *(uint8_t*)0x20001fd8 = 0x85;
> *(uint8_t*)0x20001fd9 = 0x44;
> *(uint16_t*)0x20001fda = 0;
> *(uint32_t*)0x20001fdc = 0x13;
> *(uint8_t*)0x20001fe0 = 5;
> *(uint8_t*)0x20001fe1 = 0;
> *(uint16_t*)0x20001fe2 = 0;
> *(uint32_t*)0x20001fe4 = 0;
> *(uint8_t*)0x20001fe8 = 0x95;
> *(uint8_t*)0x20001fe9 = 0;
> *(uint16_t*)0x20001fea = 0;
> *(uint32_t*)0x20001fec = 0;
> *(uint64_t*)0x20000090 = 0x20000000;
> memcpy((void*)0x20000000, "\000", 1);
> *(uint32_t*)0x20000098 = 5;
> *(uint32_t*)0x2000009c = 0x487;
> *(uint64_t*)0x200000a0 = 0x2000cf3d;
> *(uint32_t*)0x200000a8 = 0;
> *(uint32_t*)0x200000ac = 0;
> *(uint8_t*)0x200000b0 = 0;
> *(uint8_t*)0x200000b1 = 0;
> *(uint8_t*)0x200000b2 = 0;
> *(uint8_t*)0x200000b3 = 0;
> *(uint8_t*)0x200000b4 = 0;
> *(uint8_t*)0x200000b5 = 0;
> *(uint8_t*)0x200000b6 = 0;
> *(uint8_t*)0x200000b7 = 0;
> *(uint8_t*)0x200000b8 = 0;
> *(uint8_t*)0x200000b9 = 0;
> *(uint8_t*)0x200000ba = 0;
> *(uint8_t*)0x200000bb = 0;
> *(uint8_t*)0x200000bc = 0;
> *(uint8_t*)0x200000bd = 0;
> *(uint8_t*)0x200000be = 0;
> *(uint8_t*)0x200000bf = 0;
> *(uint32_t*)0x200000c0 = 0;
> *(uint32_t*)0x200000c4 = 0;
> int fd = syscall(__NR_bpf, 5, 0x20000080, 0x48);
> *(uint32_t*)0x20000200 = fd;
> *(uint32_t*)0x20000204 = 0;
> *(uint32_t*)0x20000208 = 0xe;
> *(uint32_t*)0x2000020c = 0;
> *(uint64_t*)0x20000210 = 0x20000100;
> memcpy((void*)0x20000100,
> "\x85\x57\x14\x7d\x61\x87\x67\x75\x23\xfe\xa2\x8c\x88\xa8", 14);
> *(uint64_t*)0x20000218 = 0;
> *(uint32_t*)0x20000220 = 0xfffffffe;
> *(uint32_t*)0x20000224 = 0;
> syscall(__NR_bpf, 0xa, 0x20000200, 0x28);
> return 0;
> }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists