netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 3/6] libbpf: Ensure that module BTF fd is never 0

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:   Thu, 07 Oct 2021 12:24:34 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 3/6] libbpf: Ensure that module BTF fd is
 never 0

Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> writes:

> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 12:09 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 9:43 AM Andrii Nakryiko
>> <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 10:24 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
>> > <memxor@...il.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 10:11:29AM IST, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>> > > > On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 5:29 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Since the code assumes in various places that BTF fd for modules is
>> > > > > never 0, if we end up getting fd as 0, obtain a new fd > 0. Even though
>> > > > > fd 0 being free for allocation is usually an application error, it is
>> > > > > still possible that we end up getting fd 0 if the application explicitly
>> > > > > closes its stdin. Deal with this by getting a new fd using dup and
>> > > > > closing fd 0.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
>> > > > > ---
>> > > > >  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>> > > > >  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
>> > > > > index d286dec73b5f..3e5e460fe63e 100644
>> > > > > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
>> > > > > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
>> > > > > @@ -4975,6 +4975,20 @@ static int load_module_btfs(struct bpf_object *obj)
>> > > > >                         pr_warn("failed to get BTF object #%d FD: %d\n", id, err);
>> > > > >                         return err;
>> > > > >                 }
>> > > > > +               /* Make sure module BTF fd is never 0, as kernel depends on it
>> > > > > +                * being > 0 to distinguish between vmlinux and module BTFs,
>> > > > > +                * e.g. for BPF_PSEUDO_BTF_ID ld_imm64 insns (ksyms).
>> > > > > +                */
>> > > > > +               if (!fd) {
>> > > > > +                       fd = dup(0);
>> > > >
>> > > > This is not the only place where we make assumptions that fd > 0 but
>> > > > technically can get fd == 0. Instead of doing such a check in every
>> > > > such place, would it be possible to open (cheaply) some FD (/dev/null
>> > > > or whatever, don't know what's the best file to open), if we detect
>> > > > that FD == 0 is not allocated? Can we detect that fd 0 is not
>> > > > allocated?
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > We can, e.g. using access("/proc/self/fd/0", F_OK), but I think just calling
>> > > open unconditonally and doing if (ret > 0) close(ret) is better. Also, do I
>> >
>> > yeah, I like this idea, let's go with it
>>
>> FYI some production environments may detect that FDs 0,1,2 are not
>> pointing to stdin, stdout, stderr and will force close whatever files are there
>> and open 0,1,2 with canonical files.
>>
>> libbpf doesn't have to resort to such measures, but it would be prudent to
>> make libbpf operate on FDs > 2 for all bpf objects to make sure other
>> frameworks don't ruin libbpf's view of FDs.
>
> oh well, even without those production complications this would be a
> bit fragile, e.g., if the application temporarily opened FD 0 and then
> closed it.
>
> Ok, Kumar, can you please do it as a simple helper that would
> dup()'ing until we have FD>2, and use it in as few places as possible
> to make sure that all FDs (not just module BTF) are covered. I'd
> suggest doing that only in low-level helpers in btf.c, I think
> libbpf's logic always goes through those anyways (but please
> double-check that we don't call bpf syscall directly anywhere else).

FYI, you can use fcntl() with F_DUPFD{,_CLOEXEC} and tell it the minimum
fd number you're interested in for the clone. We do that in libxdp to
protect against fd 0:

https://github.com/xdp-project/xdp-tools/blob/master/lib/libxdp/libxdp.c#L1184

Given Alexei's comments above, maybe we should be '3' for the last arg
instead of 1...

-Toke