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  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, 13 Apr 2022 12:49:58 -0700
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <>
To:     Tadeusz Struk <>
Cc:     bpf <>, Alexei Starovoitov <>,
        Daniel Borkmann <>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <>,
        Song Liu <>, Yonghong Song <>,
        John Fastabend <>,
        KP Singh <>,
        Networking <>,
        linux- stable <>,
        open list <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: Fix KASAN use-after-free Read in compute_effective_progs

On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 12:27 PM Tadeusz Struk <> wrote:
> On 4/13/22 12:07, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> >> it would be ideal if detach would never fail, but it would require some kind of
> >> prealloc, on attach maybe? Another option would be to minimize the probability
> > We allocate new arrays in update_effective_progs() under assumption
> > that we might need to grow the array because we use
> > update_effective_progs() for attachment. But for detachment we know
> > that we definitely don't need to increase the size, we need to remove
> > existing element only, thus shrinking the size.
> >
> > Normally we'd reallocate the array to shrink it (and that's why we use
> > update_effective_progs() and allocate memory), but we can also have a
> > fallback path for detachment only to reuse existing effective arrays
> > and just shift all the elements to the right from the element that's
> > being removed. We'll leave NULL at the end, but that's much better
> > than error out. Subsequent attachment or detachment will attempt to
> > properly size and reallocate everything.
> >
> > So I think that should be the fix, if you'd be willing to work on it.
> That makes it much easier then. I will change it so that there is no
> alloc needed on the detach path. Thanks for the clarification.

Keep in mind that we probably want to do normal alloc-based detach
first anyways, if it works. It will keep effective arrays minimally
sized. This additional detach specific logic should be a fall back
path if the normal way doesn't work.

> --
> Thanks,
> Tadeusz

Powered by blists - more mailing lists