netdev - [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/5] bpf: Reject indirect var

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 3 Apr 2019 15:15:20 -0700
From:   Andrey Ignatov <rdna@...com>
To:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Andrey Ignatov <rdna@...com>, <ast@...nel.org>,
        <daniel@...earbox.net>, <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/5] bpf: Reject indirect var_off stack access in raw mode

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 | 9 +++++++++
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index b7a7a9caa82f..88a0c6e0b5a8 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -2213,6 +2213,15 @@ static int check_stack_boundary(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno,
 		if (err)
 			return err;
 	} 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)
+			meta = NULL;
+
 		min_off = reg->smin_value + reg->off;
 		max_off = reg->umax_value + reg->off;
 		err = __check_stack_boundary(env, regno, min_off, access_size,
-- 
2.17.1