Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/4] bpf_trace: check size for overflow in bpf_kprobe_multi_link_attach

From: Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@redhat.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
	Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
	Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
	<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/4] bpf_trace: check size for overflow in bpf_kprobe_multi_link_attach
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 16:37:02 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220519143702.GA22773@asgard.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzYpNZSY+D6_QP4NE2dN25g4wD43UmJyzmqXCL=HOE9HFA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 04:30:14PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 12:36 AM Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Check that size would not overflow before calculation (and return
> > -EOVERFLOW if it will), to prevent potential out-of-bounds write
> > with the following copy_from_user.  Use kvmalloc_array
> > in copy_user_syms to prevent out-of-bounds write into syms
> > (and especially buf) as well.
> >
> > Fixes: 0dcac272540613d4 ("bpf: Add multi kprobe link")
> > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 5.18
> > Signed-off-by: Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 7 ++++---
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > index 7141ca8..9c041be 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > @@ -2261,11 +2261,11 @@ static int copy_user_syms(struct user_syms *us, unsigned long __user *usyms, u32
> >         int err = -ENOMEM;
> >         unsigned int i;
> >
> > -       syms = kvmalloc(cnt * sizeof(*syms), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +       syms = kvmalloc_array(cnt, sizeof(*syms), GFP_KERNEL);
> >         if (!syms)
> >                 goto error;
> >
> > -       buf = kvmalloc(cnt * KSYM_NAME_LEN, GFP_KERNEL);
> > +       buf = kvmalloc_array(cnt, KSYM_NAME_LEN, GFP_KERNEL);
> >         if (!buf)
> >                 goto error;
> >
> > @@ -2461,7 +2461,8 @@ int bpf_kprobe_multi_link_attach(const union bpf_attr *attr, struct bpf_prog *pr
> >         if (!cnt)
> >                 return -EINVAL;
> >
> > -       size = cnt * sizeof(*addrs);
> > +       if (check_mul_overflow(cnt, (u32)sizeof(*addrs), &size))
> > +               return -EOVERFLOW;
> >         addrs = kvmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> any good reason not to use kvmalloc_array() here as well and delegate
> overflow to it. And then use long size (as expected by copy_from_user
> anyway) everywhere?

Just to avoid double calculation of size, otherwise I don't have
any significant prefernce, other than -EOVERFLOW would not be reported
separately (not sure if this a good or a bad thing), and that
it would be a bit more cumbersome to incorporate the Yonghong's
suggestion[1] about the INT_MAX check.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/412bf136-6a5b-f442-1e84-778697e2b694@fb.com/

> >         if (!addrs)
> >                 return -ENOMEM;
> > --
> > 2.1.4
> >
> 