netdev - Re: [PATCH] bpf: Fix integer overflow in argument calculation for bpf_map_area

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]

Message-ID: <20210127050937.GA5418@ubuntu>
Date:   Wed, 27 Jan 2021 12:09:37 +0700
From:   Bui Quang Minh <minhquangbui99@...il.com>
To:     Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, hawk@...nel.org,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        kpsingh@...nel.org, Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: Fix integer overflow in argument calculation for
 bpf_map_area_alloc

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 11:23:41AM +0700, Bui Quang Minh wrote:
> > * Seems like there are quite a few similar calls scattered around
> > (cpumap, etc.). Did you audit these as well?
> 
> I spotted another bug after re-auditting. In hashtab, there ares 2 places using
> the same calls
> 
> 	static struct bpf_map *htab_map_alloc(union bpf_attr *attr)
> 	{
> 		/* ... snip ... */
> 		if (htab->n_buckets == 0 ||
> 		    htab->n_buckets > U32_MAX / sizeof(struct bucket))
> 			goto free_htab;
> 
> 		htab->buckets = bpf_map_area_alloc(htab->n_buckets *
> 						   sizeof(struct bucket),
> 						   htab->map.numa_node);
> 	}
> 
> This is safe because of the above check.
> 
> 	static int prealloc_init(struct bpf_htab *htab)
> 	{
> 		u32 num_entries = htab->map.max_entries;
> 		htab->elems = bpf_map_area_alloc(htab->elem_size * num_entries,
> 						 htab->map.numa_node);
> 	}
> 
> This is not safe since there is no limit check in elem_size.

So sorry but I rechecked and saw this bug in hashtab has been fixed with commit
e1868b9e36d0ca

Thank you,
Quang Minh.