From patchwork Tue Jun 15 16:42:10 2021 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Kurt Manucredo X-Patchwork-Id: 12322415 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C00CC48BDF for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 16:42:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mother.openwall.net (mother.openwall.net [195.42.179.200]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1E98C6188B for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 16:42:48 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1E98C6188B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kernel-hardening-return-21304-kernel-hardening=archiver.kernel.org@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 18279 invoked by uid 550); 15 Jun 2021 16:42:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact kernel-hardening-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Received: (qmail 18244 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2021 16:42:38 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5HqZgwKlnzHk7eYEZtH1CaDCUYRbqEaAMkPzJHvXqS0=; b=mybjY4le4ctEWGm4xYu2iOggsKW4q3/OyS+MxcoV+4sj4lWFwwnQNlmhPG+4ab8x1U eGsvSWvravHxwru85zseEObBLKnmFFAKleEjMXqFeo/AAKK7F6vHUQiMTj+LkjBYl9CB ElZy+6UTOxwulqLE/1DJtATQRhuNKzyaBTKdMu9bO2tSvsq/EwMG3Qcbm1oHHuWPvkoc JEwU2r3TJyNZ81FlgaipOWrPVgZNpCEz8C5Xr5Id0F15hRR3wGRIexVErFKRcAmYHupS u/NOU4f1YPVY6dlllL4AvnoSJ3H1Xo7QDnLZpOjoPAAN2Fe5nt0pyXyroPiQVTWwjCoM lLjA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5HqZgwKlnzHk7eYEZtH1CaDCUYRbqEaAMkPzJHvXqS0=; b=G6//66OINHLSMkMojH6vC5DfVxrNZqYaX+F+rHnYFZvcgRppyhvwkQz6NXREv1GjFc 2TKsFeYaPPqSXC6qTKg0qTzAv/+F7gzR34Xxyysec4WccOsnJNxlT2rj3punrlEgSBBs 1Pvy8pCOEVSULYHyzyhGaEZvGbaZo4DQJesf6UZBPaMLWAaJcBbnOGreFKxzL3qimewW CkqDwXRlEhKmWZjFZYIPlCcfDmy2/1hMhqT7LbnFmrf7M+OWZKD8jlPTQB3DaOIs2eiK RuOQnRsXshyWogII1dlhEgLEUTsSioNYjNknvWudVL7CiUB2QQfec+yM/+f0e6htWRtZ YRww== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ZW3sk+iPaegSFhQkZqNJxFbe8y4eUM+rXlNPAr8gvJrFaglYD AtbwmPOk3L3LLaYM+ys45iA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwp84+Gas8I1iFxMF+l7Gvuia2vMA5qr7ms18jAFHC17zcr6iYbk+siFXsqqCOGOhy2a2vdPw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:110e:: with SMTP id z14mr26964792wrw.235.1623775347448; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 09:42:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Kurt Manucredo To: ebiggers@kernel.org, syzbot+bed360704c521841c85d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Cc: Kurt Manucredo , keescook@chromium.org, yhs@fb.com, dvyukov@google.com, andrii@kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, davem@davemloft.net, hawk@kernel.org, john.fastabend@gmail.com, kafai@fb.com, kpsingh@kernel.org, kuba@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, songliubraving@fb.com, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, nathan@kernel.org, ndesaulniers@google.com, clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com Subject: [PATCH v5] bpf: core: fix shift-out-of-bounds in ___bpf_prog_run Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 16:42:10 +0000 Message-Id: <85536-177443-curtm@phaethon> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.30.2 In-Reply-To: References: <87609-531187-curtm@phaethon> <6a392b66-6f26-4532-d25f-6b09770ce366@fb.com> <202106091119.84A88B6FE7@keescook> <752cb1ad-a0b1-92b7-4c49-bbb42fdecdbe@fb.com> <1aaa2408-94b9-a1e6-beff-7523b66fe73d@fb.com> <202106101002.DF8C7EF@keescook> MIME-Version: 1.0 Syzbot detects a shift-out-of-bounds in ___bpf_prog_run() kernel/bpf/core.c:1414:2. The shift-out-of-bounds happens when we have BPF_X. This means we have to go the same way we go when we want to avoid a divide-by-zero. We do it in do_misc_fixups(). When we have BPF_K we find divide-by-zero and shift-out-of-bounds guards next each other in check_alu_op(). It seems only logical to me that the same should be true for BPF_X in do_misc_fixups() since it is there where I found the divide-by-zero guard. Or is there a reason I'm not aware of, that dictates that the checks should be in adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(), as they are now? This patch was tested by syzbot. Reported-and-tested-by: syzbot+bed360704c521841c85d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Signed-off-by: Kurt Manucredo --- https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=edb51be4c9a320186328893287bb30d5eed09231 Changelog: ---------- v5 - Fix shift-out-of-bounds in do_misc_fixups(). v4 - Fix shift-out-of-bounds in adjust_scalar_min_max_vals. Fix commit message. v3 - Make it clearer what the fix is for. v2 - Fix shift-out-of-bounds in ___bpf_prog_run() by adding boundary check in check_alu_op() in verifier.c. v1 - Fix shift-out-of-bounds in ___bpf_prog_run() by adding boundary check in ___bpf_prog_run(). thanks kind regards Kurt kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 94ba5163d4c5..83c7c1ccaf26 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -7496,7 +7496,6 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u64 umin_val, umax_val; s32 s32_min_val, s32_max_val; u32 u32_min_val, u32_max_val; - u64 insn_bitness = (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64) ? 64 : 32; bool alu32 = (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) != BPF_ALU64); int ret; @@ -7592,39 +7591,18 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, scalar_min_max_xor(dst_reg, &src_reg); break; case BPF_LSH: - if (umax_val >= insn_bitness) { - /* Shifts greater than 31 or 63 are undefined. - * This includes shifts by a negative number. - */ - mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, insn->dst_reg); - break; - } if (alu32) scalar32_min_max_lsh(dst_reg, &src_reg); else scalar_min_max_lsh(dst_reg, &src_reg); break; case BPF_RSH: - if (umax_val >= insn_bitness) { - /* Shifts greater than 31 or 63 are undefined. - * This includes shifts by a negative number. - */ - mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, insn->dst_reg); - break; - } if (alu32) scalar32_min_max_rsh(dst_reg, &src_reg); else scalar_min_max_rsh(dst_reg, &src_reg); break; case BPF_ARSH: - if (umax_val >= insn_bitness) { - /* Shifts greater than 31 or 63 are undefined. - * This includes shifts by a negative number. - */ - mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, insn->dst_reg); - break; - } if (alu32) scalar32_min_max_arsh(dst_reg, &src_reg); else @@ -12353,6 +12331,37 @@ static int do_misc_fixups(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) continue; } + /* Make shift-out-of-bounds exceptions impossible. */ + if (insn->code == (BPF_ALU64 | BPF_LSH | BPF_X) || + insn->code == (BPF_ALU64 | BPF_RSH | BPF_X) || + insn->code == (BPF_ALU64 | BPF_ARSH | BPF_X) || + insn->code == (BPF_ALU | BPF_LSH | BPF_X) || + insn->code == (BPF_ALU | BPF_RSH | BPF_X) || + insn->code == (BPF_ALU | BPF_ARSH | BPF_X)) { + bool is64 = BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64; + u8 insn_bitness = is64 ? 64 : 32; + struct bpf_insn chk_and_shift[] = { + /* [R,W]x shift >= 32||64 -> 0 */ + BPF_RAW_INSN((is64 ? BPF_JMP : BPF_JMP32) | + BPF_JLT | BPF_K, insn->src_reg, + insn_bitness, 2, 0), + BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_XOR, insn->dst_reg, insn->dst_reg), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 1), + *insn, + }; + + cnt = ARRAY_SIZE(chk_and_shift); + + new_prog = bpf_patch_insn_data(env, i + delta, chk_and_shift, cnt); + if (!new_prog) + return -ENOMEM; + + delta += cnt - 1; + env->prog = prog = new_prog; + insn = new_prog->insnsi + i + delta; + continue; + } + /* Implement LD_ABS and LD_IND with a rewrite, if supported by the program type. */ if (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_LD && (BPF_MODE(insn->code) == BPF_ABS ||