netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: Fix the off-by-two error in range markings

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, 1 Dec 2021 13:31:32 +0200
From:   Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...dia.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
CC:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        "KP Singh" <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "Jesper Dangaard Brouer" <hawk@...nel.org>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: Fix the off-by-two error in range markings

On 2021-11-30 23:40, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 11/30/21 7:16 PM, Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote:
>> The first commit cited below attempts to fix the off-by-one error that
>> appeared in some comparisons with an open range. Due to this error,
>> arithmetically equivalent pieces of code could get different verdicts
>> from the verifier, for example (pseudocode):
>>
>>    // 1. Passes the verifier:
>>    if (data + 8 > data_end)
>>        return early
>>    read *(u64 *)data, i.e. [data; data+7]
>>
>>    // 2. Rejected by the verifier (should still pass):
>>    if (data + 7 >= data_end)
>>        return early
>>    read *(u64 *)data, i.e. [data; data+7]
>>
>> The attempted fix, however, shifts the range by one in a wrong
>> direction, so the bug not only remains, but also such piece of code
>> starts failing in the verifier:
>>
>>    // 3. Rejected by the verifier, but the check is stricter than in #1.
>>    if (data + 8 >= data_end)
>>        return early
>>    read *(u64 *)data, i.e. [data; data+7]
>>
>> The change performed by that fix converted an off-by-one bug into
>> off-by-two. The second commit cited below added the BPF selftests
>> written to ensure than code chunks like #3 are rejected, however,
>> they should be accepted.
>>
>> This commit fixes the off-by-two error by adjusting new_range in the
>> right direction and fixes the tests by changing the range into the one
>> that should actually fail.
>>
>> Fixes: fb2a311a31d3 ("bpf: fix off by one for range markings with L{T, 
>> E} patterns")
>> Fixes: b37242c773b2 ("bpf: add test cases to bpf selftests to cover 
>> all access tests")
>> Signed-off-by: Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...dia.com>
>> ---
>> After this patch is merged, I'm going to submit another patch to
>> bpf-next, that will add new selftests for this bug.
> 
> Thanks for the fix, pls post the selftests for bpf tree; it's okay to route
> them via bpf so they can go via CI for both trees eventually.

OK, one question though: if I want to cite the commit hash of this patch 
in that patch, shall I want till this one is merged and get the commit 
hash from the bpf tree or should I resubmit them together and just say 
"previous commit"?

Also, I see in patchwork that bpf/vmtest-bpf failed: is it related to my 
patch or is it something known?

Thanks,
Max