netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 06/11] bpf: Fix compare error in function retval_range

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: <2deeb1ef-e8f2-4ff8-9a9b-b79a40b25bec@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 16:08:08 +0800
From: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...weicloud.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
 Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
 Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
 Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Eduard Zingerman
 <eddyz87@...il.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
 Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>,
 John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
 Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
 Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Matt Bobrowski <mattbobrowski@...gle.com>,
 Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...omium.org>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
 James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
 Khadija Kamran <kamrankhadijadj@...il.com>,
 Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
 Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
 John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
 Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
 Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>,
 Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 06/11] bpf: Fix compare error in function
 retval_range_within

On 4/26/2024 7:41 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 5:24 AM Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...weicloud.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...wei.com>
>>
>> After checking lsm hook return range in verifier, the test case
>> "test_progs -t test_lsm" failed, and the failure log says:
>>
>> libbpf: prog 'test_int_hook': BPF program load failed: Invalid argument
>> libbpf: prog 'test_int_hook': -- BEGIN PROG LOAD LOG --
>> 0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
>> ; int BPF_PROG(test_int_hook, struct vm_area_struct *vma, @ lsm.c:89
>> 0: (79) r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 +24)         ; R0_w=scalar(smin=smin32=-4095,smax=smax32=0) R1=ctx()
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> 24: (b4) w0 = -1                      ; R0_w=0xffffffff
>> ; int BPF_PROG(test_int_hook, struct vm_area_struct *vma, @ lsm.c:89
>> 25: (95) exit
>> At program exit the register R0 has smin=4294967295 smax=4294967295 should have been in [-4095, 0]
>>
>> It can be seen that instruction "w0 = -1" zero extended -1 to 64-bit
>> register r0, setting both smin and smax values of r0 to 4294967295.
>> This resulted in a false reject when r0 was checked with range [-4095, 0].
>>
>> Given bpf_retval_range is a 32-bit range, this patch fixes it by
>> changing the compare between r0 and return range from 64-bit
>> operation to 32-bit operation.
>>
>> Fixes: 8fa4ecd49b81 ("bpf: enforce exact retval range on subprog/callback exit")
>> Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>   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 05c7c5f2bec0..5393d576c76f 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> @@ -9879,7 +9879,7 @@ static bool in_rbtree_lock_required_cb(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
>>
>>   static bool retval_range_within(struct bpf_retval_range range, const struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
>>   {
>> -       return range.minval <= reg->smin_value && reg->smax_value <= range.maxval;
>> +       return range.minval <= reg->s32_min_value && reg->s32_max_value <= range.maxval;
> 
> are all BPF programs treated as if they return int instead of long? If
> not, we probably should have a bool flag in bpf_retval_range whether
> comparison should be 32-bit or 64-bit?
>

It seems that when a fmod_return prog is attached to a kernel function
that returns long value, the bpf prog should also return long value.
To confirm it, I'll try to find an example or construct a case for this.

>>   }
>>
>>   static int prepare_func_exit(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int *insn_idx)
>> --
>> 2.30.2
>>
>