netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 4/5] bpf: verifier: Support eliding map lookup nullness

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: <d0b5e424445f498fdedca04fd4b0f138fbb6ae36.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2024 16:43:08 -0800
From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>
To: Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>, andrii@...nel.org, 
 ast@...nel.org, shuah@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
 john.fastabend@...il.com,  martin.lau@...ux.dev, song@...nel.org,
 yonghong.song@...ux.dev, kpsingh@...nel.org,  sdf@...ichev.me,
 haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org, mykolal@...com,  bpf@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,  linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 4/5] bpf: verifier: Support eliding map
 lookup nullness

On Thu, 2024-12-19 at 17:40 -0700, Daniel Xu wrote:

[...]

> > Ok, thinking a bit more, the best test I can come up with is:
> > 
> >   u8 vals[8];
> >   vals[0] = 0;
> >   ...
> >   vals[6] = 0;
> >   vals[7] = 0xf;
> >   p = bpf_map_lookup_elem(... vals ...);
> >   *p = 42;
> > 
> > For LE vals as u32 should be 0x0f;
> > For BE vals as u32 should be 0xf000_0000.
> > Hence, it is not safe to remove null check for this program.
> > What would verifier think about the value of such key?
> > As far as I understand, there would be stack zero for for vals[0-6]
> > and u8 stack spill for vals[7].
> 
> Right. By checking that spill size is same as key size, we stay endian
> neutral, as constant values are tracked in native endianness.
> 
> However, if we were to start interpreting combinations of STACK_ZERO,
> STACK_MISC, and STACK_SPILL, the verifier would have to be endian aware
> (IIUC). Which makes it a somewhat interesting problem but also requires
> some thought to correctly handle the state space.

Right.

> > You were going to add a check for the spill size, which should help here.
> > So, a negative test like above that checks that verifier complains
> > that 'p' should be checked for nullness first?
> > 
> > If anyone has better test in mind, please speak-up.
> 
> I think this case reduces down to a spill_size != key_size test. As long
> as the sizes match, we don't have to worry about endianness.

Agree.