On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 05:39:55PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 2/20/24 7:54 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > Replace deprecated 0-length array in struct bpf_lpm_trie_key with
> > flexible array. Found with GCC 13:
> >
> > ../kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c:207:51: warning: array subscript i is outside array bounds of 'const __u8[0]' {aka 'const unsigned char[]'} [-Warray-bounds=]
> > 207 | *(__be16 *)&key->data[i]);
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > ../include/uapi/linux/swab.h:102:54: note: in definition of macro '__swab16'
> > 102 | #define __swab16(x) (__u16)__builtin_bswap16((__u16)(x))
> > | ^
> > ../include/linux/byteorder/generic.h:97:21: note: in expansion of macro '__be16_to_cpu'
> > 97 | #define be16_to_cpu __be16_to_cpu
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > ../kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c:206:28: note: in expansion of macro 'be16_to_cpu'
> > 206 | u16 diff = be16_to_cpu(*(__be16 *)&node->data[i]
> > ^
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~
> > In file included from ../include/linux/bpf.h:7:
> > ../include/uapi/linux/bpf.h:82:17: note: while referencing 'data'
> > 82 | __u8 data[0]; /* Arbitrary size */
> > | ^~~~
> >
> > And found at run-time under CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE:
> >
> > UBSAN: array-index-out-of-bounds in kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c:218:49
> > index 0 is out of range for type '__u8 [*]'
> >
> > Changing struct bpf_lpm_trie_key is difficult since has been used by
> > userspace. For example, in Cilium:
> >
> > struct egress_gw_policy_key {
> > struct bpf_lpm_trie_key lpm_key;
> > __u32 saddr;
> > __u32 daddr;
> > };
> >
> > While direct references to the "data" member haven't been found, there
> > are static initializers what include the final member. For example,
> > the "{}" here:
> >
> > struct egress_gw_policy_key in_key = {
> > .lpm_key = { 32 + 24, {} },
> > .saddr = CLIENT_IP,
> > .daddr = EXTERNAL_SVC_IP & 0Xffffff,
> > };
> >
> > To avoid the build time and run time warnings seen with a 0-sized
> > trailing array for struct bpf_lpm_trie_key, introduce a new struct
> > that correctly uses a flexible array for the trailing bytes,
> > struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8. As part of this, include the "header"
> > portion (which is just the "prefixlen" member), so it can be used
> > by anything building a bpf_lpr_trie_key that has trailing members that
> > aren't a u8 flexible array (like the self-test[1]), which is named
> > struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_hdr.
> >
> > Adjust the kernel code to use struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 through-out,
> > and for the selftest to use struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_hdr. Add a comment
> > to the UAPI header directing folks to the two new options.
> >
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/202206281009.4332AA33@keescook/ [1]
> > Reported-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>
> > Closes: https://paste.debian.net/hidden/ca500597/
> > Acked-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> [...]
>
> The build in BPF CI is still broken, did you try to build selftests?
I did! I didn't have this error. :(
> https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/7978647641
Thanks for the pointer. It took a bit of digging, but I found this:
https://github.com/libbpf/ci/blob/main/build-selftests/build_selftests.sh
which is much more involved than just "make -C tools/testing/selftests/bpf"
>
> [...]
> GEN-SKEL [test_progs] linked_funcs.skel.h
> LINK-BPF [test_progs] test_usdt.bpf.o
> GEN-SKEL [test_progs-no_alu32] profiler1.skel.h
> GEN-SKEL [test_progs] test_usdt.skel.h
> In file included from /tmp/work/bpf/bpf/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h:11,
> from test_cpp.cpp:4:
> /tmp/work/bpf/bpf/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h:92:17: error: ‘struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8::<unnamed union>::bpf_lpm_trie_key_hdr’ invalid; an anonymous union may only have public non-static data members [-fpermissive]
> 92 | __struct_group(bpf_lpm_trie_key_hdr, hdr, /* no attrs */,
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> /tmp/work/bpf/bpf/tools/include/uapi/linux/stddef.h:29:10: note: in definition of macro ‘__struct_group’
> 29 | struct TAG { MEMBERS } ATTRS NAME; \
> | ^~~
I'll see if I can figure out where this is coming from. This sounds like
something is being built with an unexpectedly strict option. (The above
report seems weird -- this isn't coming from -fpermissive, and is
actually an _error_ not a warning, which is the opposite of what
-fpermissive is supposed to do.) Also the mention of "public" is scary
here... that implies a C++ compiler is involved? Maybe that's why my
builds didn't catch this?
> make: *** [Makefile:703: /tmp/work/bpf/bpf/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_cpp] Error 1
Ah yes, cpp. Fun. I will try to reproduce this failure.
--
Kees Cook
