netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 01/16] bpf: Introduce bpf_sys

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:   Fri, 23 Apr 2021 12:32:44 -0700
From:   Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
CC:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 01/16] bpf: Introduce bpf_sys_bpf() helper and
 program type.



On 4/23/21 11:28 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:16 AM Yonghong Song <yhs@...com> wrote:
>>> +
>>> +static bool syscall_prog_is_valid_access(int off, int size,
>>> +                                      enum bpf_access_type type,
>>> +                                      const struct bpf_prog *prog,
>>> +                                      struct bpf_insn_access_aux *info)
>>> +{
>>> +     if (off < 0 || off >= U16_MAX)
>>> +             return false;
>>
>> Is this enough? If I understand correctly, the new program type
>> allows any arbitrary context data from user as long as its size
>> meets the following constraints:
>>      if (ctx_size_in < prog->aux->max_ctx_offset ||
>>              ctx_size_in > U16_MAX)
>>                  return -EINVAL;
>>
>> So if user provides a ctx with size say 40 and inside the program looks
>> it is still able to read/write to say offset 400.
>> Should we be a little more restrictive on this?
> 
> At the load time the program can have a read/write at offset 400,
> but it will be rejected at prog_test_run time.
> That's similar to tp and raw_tp test_run-s and attach-es.
> That's why test_run has that check you've quoted.
> It's a two step verification.
> The verifier rejects <0 || > u16_max right away and
> keeps the track of max_ctx_offset.
> Then at attach/test_run the final check is done with an actual ctx_size_in.

Thanks! That is indeed the case. Somehow although I copy-pasted it,
I missed the code "ctx_size_in < prog->aux->max_ctx_offset"...