Re: [PATCH v4] bpf: core: fix shift-out-of-bounds in ___bpf_prog_run

["Kurt Manucredo" <fuzzybritches0@gmail.com>]

On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 14:39:57 -0700, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/5/21 12:10 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 5, 2021 at 10:55 AM Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 6/5/21 8:01 AM, Kurt Manucredo wrote:
> >>> Syzbot detects a shift-out-of-bounds in ___bpf_prog_run()
> >>> kernel/bpf/core.c:1414:2.
> >>
> >> This is not enough. We need more information on why this happens
> >> so we can judge whether the patch indeed fixed the issue.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I propose: In adjust_scalar_min_max_vals() move boundary check up to avoid
> >>> missing them and return with error when detected.
> >>>
> >>> Reported-and-tested-by: syzbot+bed360704c521841c85d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> >>> Signed-off-by: Kurt Manucredo <fuzzybritches0@gmail.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>
> >>> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=edb51be4c9a320186328893287bb30d5eed09231
> >>>
> >>> Changelog:
> >>> ----------
> >>> 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 | 30 +++++++++---------------------
> >>>    1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> >>> index 94ba5163d4c5..ed0eecf20de5 100644
> >>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> >>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> >>> @@ -7510,6 +7510,15 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> >>>        u32_min_val = src_reg.u32_min_value;
> >>>        u32_max_val = src_reg.u32_max_value;
> >>>
> >>> +     if ((opcode == BPF_LSH || opcode == BPF_RSH || opcode == BPF_ARSH) &&
> >>> +                     umax_val >= insn_bitness) {
> >>> +             /* Shifts greater than 31 or 63 are undefined.
> >>> +              * This includes shifts by a negative number.
> >>> +              */
> >>> +             verbose(env, "invalid shift %lldn", umax_val);
> >>> +             return -EINVAL;
> >>> +     }
> >>
> >> I think your fix is good. I would like to move after
> > 
> > I suspect such change will break valid programs that do shift by register.
> 
> Oh yes, you are correct. We should guard it with src_known.
> But this should be extremely rare with explicit shifting amount being
> greater than 31/64 and if it is the case, the compiler will has a
> warning.
> 
> > 
> >> the following code though:
> >>
> >>           if (!src_known &&
> >>               opcode != BPF_ADD && opcode != BPF_SUB && opcode != BPF_AND) {
> >>                   __mark_reg_unknown(env, dst_reg);
> >>                   return 0;
> >>           }
> >>
> >>> +
> >>>        if (alu32) {
> >>>                src_known = tnum_subreg_is_const(src_reg.var_off);
> >>>                if ((src_known &&
> >>> @@ -7592,39 +7601,18 @@ 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;
> >>> -             }
> >>
> >> I think this is what happens. For the above case, we simply
> >> marks the dst reg as unknown and didn't fail verification.
> >> So later on at runtime, the shift optimization will have wrong
> >> shift value (> 31/64). Please correct me if this is not right
> >> analysis. As I mentioned in the early please write detailed
> >> analysis in commit log.
> > 
> > The large shift is not wrong. It's just undefined.
> > syzbot has to ignore such cases.
> 
> Agree. This makes sense.

Thanks for your input. If you find I should look closer into this bug
just let me know. I'd love to help. If not it's fine, too. :-)

kind regards,

Kurt Manucredo