netdev - Re: [PATCH] bpf: Fix mask generation for 32-bit narrow loads of 64-bit fields

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: <2cb24299-5322-6482-024a-427024f03b7d@meta.com>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2023 13:18:04 -0700
From: Yonghong Song <yhs@...a.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@...volk.io>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Andrey Ignatov <rdna@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: Fix mask generation for 32-bit narrow loads of
 64-bit fields



On 5/2/23 9:57 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> A narrow load from a 64-bit context field results in a 64-bit load
> followed potentially by a 64-bit right-shift and then a bitwise AND
> operation to extract the relevant data.
> 
> In the case of a 32-bit access, an immediate mask of 0xffffffff is used
> to construct a 64-bit BPP_AND operation which then sign-extends the mask
> value and effectively acts as a glorified no-op.
> 
> Fix the mask generation so that narrow loads always perform a 32-bit AND
> operation.
> 
> Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
> Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
> Cc: Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@...volk.io>
> Cc: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
> Cc: Andrey Ignatov <rdna@...com>
> Fixes: 31fd85816dbe ("bpf: permits narrower load from bpf program context fields")
> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>


Thanks for the fix! You didn't miss anything. It is a bug and we did not 
find it probably because user always use 'u64 val = ctx->u64_field' in 
their bpf code...

But I think the commit message can be improved. An example to show the
difference without and with this patch can explain the issue much better.

Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>

> ---
> 
> I spotted this while playing around with the JIT on arm64. I can't
> figure out why 31fd85816dbe special-cases 8-byte ctx fields in the
> first place, so I fear I may be missing something...
> 
>   kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index fbcf5a4e2fcd..5871aa78d01a 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -17033,7 +17033,7 @@ static int convert_ctx_accesses(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
>   					insn_buf[cnt++] = BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH,
>   									insn->dst_reg,
>   									shift);
> -				insn_buf[cnt++] = BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, insn->dst_reg,
> +				insn_buf[cnt++] = BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_AND, insn->dst_reg,
>   								(1ULL << size * 8) - 1);
>   			}
>   		}