• Daniel Borkmann's avatar
    bpf: Don't use tnum_range on array range checking for poke descriptors · a657182a
    Daniel Borkmann authored
    Hsin-Wei reported a KASAN splat triggered by their BPF runtime fuzzer which
    is based on a customized syzkaller:
    
      BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in bpf_int_jit_compile+0x1257/0x13f0
      Read of size 8 at addr ffff888004e90b58 by task syz-executor.0/1489
      CPU: 1 PID: 1489 Comm: syz-executor.0 Not tainted 5.19.0 #1
      Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS
      1.13.0-1ubuntu1.1 04/01/2014
      Call Trace:
       <TASK>
       dump_stack_lvl+0x9c/0xc9
       print_address_description.constprop.0+0x1f/0x1f0
       ? bpf_int_jit_compile+0x1257/0x13f0
       kasan_report.cold+0xeb/0x197
       ? kvmalloc_node+0x170/0x200
       ? bpf_int_jit_compile+0x1257/0x13f0
       bpf_int_jit_compile+0x1257/0x13f0
       ? arch_prepare_bpf_dispatcher+0xd0/0xd0
       ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x43/0x70
       bpf_prog_select_runtime+0x3e8/0x640
       ? bpf_obj_name_cpy+0x149/0x1b0
       bpf_prog_load+0x102f/0x2220
       ? __bpf_prog_put.constprop.0+0x220/0x220
       ? find_held_lock+0x2c/0x110
       ? __might_fault+0xd6/0x180
       ? lock_downgrade+0x6e0/0x6e0
       ? lock_is_held_type+0xa6/0x120
       ? __might_fault+0x147/0x180
       __sys_bpf+0x137b/0x6070
       ? bpf_perf_link_attach+0x530/0x530
       ? new_sync_read+0x600/0x600
       ? __fget_files+0x255/0x450
       ? lock_downgrade+0x6e0/0x6e0
       ? fput+0x30/0x1a0
       ? ksys_write+0x1a8/0x260
       __x64_sys_bpf+0x7a/0xc0
       ? syscall_enter_from_user_mode+0x21/0x70
       do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
       entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
      RIP: 0033:0x7f917c4e2c2d
    
    The problem here is that a range of tnum_range(0, map->max_entries - 1) has
    limited ability to represent the concrete tight range with the tnum as the
    set of resulting states from value + mask can result in a superset of the
    actual intended range, and as such a tnum_in(range, reg->var_off) check may
    yield true when it shouldn't, for example tnum_range(0, 2) would result in
    00XX -> v = 0000, m = 0011 such that the intended set of {0, 1, 2} is here
    represented by a less precise superset of {0, 1, 2, 3}. As the register is
    known const scalar, really just use the concrete reg->var_off.value for the
    upper index check.
    
    Fixes: d2e4c1e6 ("bpf: Constant map key tracking for prog array pokes")
    Reported-by: default avatarHsin-Wei Hung <hsinweih@uci.edu>
    Signed-off-by: default avatarDaniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
    Cc: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
    Acked-by: default avatarJohn Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
    Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/984b37f9fdf7ac36831d2137415a4a915744c1b6.1661462653.git.daniel@iogearbox.netSigned-off-by: default avatarAlexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
    a657182a
verifier.c 437 KB