netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH] bpf: handle 32-bit zext during constant blinding

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, 21 Aug 2019 10:05:53 +0100
From:   Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com>
To:     "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] bpf: handle 32-bit zext during constant blinding


Naveen N. Rao writes:

> Naveen N. Rao wrote:
>> Since BPF constant blinding is performed after the verifier pass, there
>> are certain ALU32 instructions inserted which don't have a corresponding
>> zext instruction inserted after. This is causing a kernel oops on
>> powerpc and can be reproduced by running 'test_cgroup_storage' with
>> bpf_jit_harden=2.
>> 
>> Fix this by emitting BPF_ZEXT during constant blinding if
>> prog->aux->verifier_zext is set.
>> 
>> Fixes: a4b1d3c1ddf6cb ("bpf: verifier: insert zero extension according to analysis result")
>> Reported-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
>> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> This approach (the location where zext is being introduced below, in 
>> particular) works for powerpc, but I am not entirely sure if this is 
>> sufficient for other architectures as well. This is broken on v5.3-rc4.
>
> Alexie, Daniel, Jiong,
> Any feedback on this?

The fix on BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW looks correct to me, but the two other
places looks to me is unnecessary, as those destinations are exposed to
external and if they are used as 64-bit then there will be zext inserted
for them.

Have you verified removing those two fixes will still cause the bug?

Regards,
Jiong

>
> - Naveen