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

[Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>]

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 %lld\n", 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.

> 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.