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]
Date:   Wed, 3 Apr 2019 21:02:25 +0000
From:   Andrey Ignatov <rdna@...com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "ast@...nel.org" <ast@...nel.org>, Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/5] bpf: Reject indirect var_off stack access in
 raw mode

Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> [Wed, 2019-04-03 09:22 -0700]:
> On 04/02/2019 10:19 PM, Andrey Ignatov wrote:
> > It's hard to guarantee that whole memory is marked as initialized on
> > helper return if uninitialized stack is accessed with variable offset
> > since specific bounds are unknown to verifier. This may cause
> > uninitialized stack leaking.
> > 
> > Reject such an access in check_stack_boundary to prevent possible
> > leaking.
> > 
> > There are no known use-cases for indirect uninitialized stack access
> > with variable offset so it shouldn't break anything.
> > 
> > Fixes: 2011fccfb61b ("bpf: Support variable offset stack access from helpers")
> > Reported-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
> > Signed-off-by: Andrey Ignatov <rdna@...com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++------
> >  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > index b7a7a9caa82f..12b84307ffa8 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > @@ -2212,7 +2212,26 @@ static int check_stack_boundary(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno,
> >  					     zero_size_allowed);
> >  		if (err)
> >  			return err;
> > +		if (meta && meta->raw_mode) {
> > +			meta->access_size = access_size;
> > +			meta->regno = regno;
> > +			return 0;
> > +		}
> >  	} else {
> > +		/* Only initialized buffer on stack is allowed to be accessed
> > +		 * with variable offset. With uninitialized buffer it's hard to
> > +		 * guarantee that whole memory is marked as initialized on
> > +		 * helper return since specific bounds are unknown what may
> > +		 * cause uninitialized stack leaking.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (meta && meta->raw_mode) {
> > +			char tn_buf[48];
> > +
> > +			tnum_strn(tn_buf, sizeof(tn_buf), reg->var_off);
> > +			verbose(env, "R%d invalid indirect access to uninitialized stack var_off=%s\n",
> > +				regno, tn_buf);
> > +			return -EACCES;
> > +		}
> 
> Hmm, I think we should probably handle this in similar way like we do
> in case of variable stack access when it comes to stack size:
> 
>                if (!tnum_is_const(reg->var_off))
>                         /* For unprivileged variable accesses, disable raw
>                          * mode so that the program is required to
>                          * initialize all the memory that the helper could
>                          * just partially fill up.
>                          */
>                         meta = NULL;
> 
> So we error out naturally on the loop later where we also mark for
> liveness, and also allow for more flexibility if we know stack must
> already be initialized in this range.

Yeah, I think this will work.

This will change the logic a bit though.

E.g. logic in this patch will deny variable offset stack access to
ARG_PTR_TO_UNINIT_MEM no matter if corresponding stack memory is
initialized or not.

But with `meta = NULL` verifier will accept access to
ARG_PTR_TO_UNINIT_MEM on stack if that part of the stack is fully
initialized for all possible offsets.

I think the latter should be fine since if all possible bytes that can
be accessed are already initialized then there should not be problem on
return from the helper.

I'll switch to `meta = NULL` in v3. Though given the difference in the
logic, let me know if you prefer to keep the one in this patch. Thanks.

> >  		min_off = reg->smin_value + reg->off;
> >  		max_off = reg->umax_value + reg->off;
> >  		err = __check_stack_boundary(env, regno, min_off, access_size,
> > @@ -2225,12 +2244,6 @@ static int check_stack_boundary(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno,
> >  			return err;
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	if (meta && meta->raw_mode) {
> > -		meta->access_size = access_size;
> > -		meta->regno = regno;
> > -		return 0;
> > -	}
> 
> This can then also stay as-is.
> 
> >  	for (i = min_off; i < max_off + access_size; i++) {
> >  		u8 *stype;
> >  
> > 
> 

-- 
Andrey Ignatov

Powered by blists - more mailing lists