On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 07:45:54AM +0000, Puranjay Mohan wrote:
> "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 10:50:30AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 9:30 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> >> <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 4:36 AM Russell King (Oracle)
> >> > <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 12:02:36PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> > > > On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 03:57:04PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >> > > > > On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 6:56 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundationorg> wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 22:19:25 -0700 syzbot <syzbot+186522670e6722692d86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Hello,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Thanks. Cc: bpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I suspect the issue is not on bpf side.
> >> > > > > Looks like the bug is somewhere in arm32 bits.
> >> > > > > copy_from_kernel_nofault() is called from lots of places.
> >> > > > > bpf is just one user that is easy for syzbot to fuzz.
> >> > > > > Interestingly arm defines copy_from_kernel_nofault_allowed()
> >> > > > > that should have filtered out user addresses.
> >> > > > > In this case ffffffe9 is probably a kernel address?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It's at the end of the kernel range, and it's ERR_PTR(-EINVAL).
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 0xffffffe9 is -0x16, which is -22, which is -EINVAL.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > But the kernel is doing a write?
> >> > > > > Which makes no sense, since copy_from_kernel_nofault is probe reading.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It makes perfect sense; the read from 'src' happened, then the kernel tries to
> >> > > > write the result to 'dst', and that aligns with the disassembly in the report
> >> > > > below, which I beleive is:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 8: e4942000 ldr r2, [r4], #0 <-- Read of 'src', fault fixup is elsewhere
> >> > > > c: e3530000 cmp r3, #0
> >> > > > * 10: e5852000 str r2, [r5] <-- Write to 'dst'
> >> > > >
> >> > > > As above, it looks like 'dst' is ERR_PTR(-EINVAL).
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Are you certain that BPF is passing a sane value for 'dst'? Where does that
> >> > > > come from in the first place?
> >> > >
> >> > > It looks to me like it gets passed in from the BPF program, and the
> >> > > "type" for the argument is set to ARG_PTR_TO_UNINIT_MEM. What that
> >> > > means for validation purposes, I've no idea, I'm not a BPF hacker.
> >> > >
> >> > > Obviously, if BPF is allowing copy_from_kernel_nofault() to be passed
> >> > > an arbitary destination address, that would be a huge security hole.
> >> >
> >> > If that's the case that's indeed a giant security hole,
> >> > but I doubt it. We would be crashing other archs as well.
> >> > I cannot really tell whether arm32 JIT is on.
> >> > If it is, it's likely a bug there.
> >> > Puranjay,
> >> > could you please take a look.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I dumped the BPF program that repro.c is loading, it works on x86-64
> >> and there is nothing special there. We are probe-reading 5 bytes from
> >> somewhere into the stack. Everything is unaligned here, but stays
> >> within a well-defined memory slot.
> >>
> >> Note the r3 = (s8)r1, that's a new-ish thing, maybe bug is somewhere
> >> there (but then it would be JIT, not verifier itself)
> >>
> >> 0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 896542069
> >> 1: (bf) r1 = r10
> >> 2: (07) r1 += -7
> >> 3: (b7) r2 = 5
> >> 4: (bf) r3 = (s8)r1
> >> 5: (85) call bpf_probe_read_kernel#-72390
> >
>
> I have started looking into this, the issue only reproduces when the JIT
> is enabled. With the interpreter, it works fine.
>
> I used GDB to dump the JITed BPF program:
>
> 0xbf00012c: push {r4, r5, r6, r7, r8, r9, r11, lr}
> 0xbf000130: mov r11, sp
> 0xbf000134: mov r3, #0
> 0xbf000138: sub r2, sp, #80 @ 0x50
> 0xbf00013c: sub sp, sp, #88 @ 0x58
> 0xbf000140: strd r2, [r11, #-64] @ 0xffffffc0
> 0xbf000144: mov r2, #0
> 0xbf000148: strd r2, [r11, #-72] @ 0xffffffb8
> 0xbf00014c: mov r2, r0
> 0xbf000150: movw r8, #9589 @ 0x2575
> 0xbf000154: movt r8, #13680 @ 0x3570
> 0xbf000158: mov r9, #0
> 0xbf00015c: ldr r6, [r11, #-64] @ 0xffffffc0
> 0xbf000160: str r8, [r6, #-8]
> 0xbf000164: str r9, [r6, #-4]
> 0xbf000168: ldrd r2, [r11, #-64] @ 0xffffffc0
> 0xbf00016c: movw r8, #65529 @ 0xfff9
> 0xbf000170: movt r8, #65535 @ 0xffff
> 0xbf000174: movw r9, #65535 @ 0xffff
> 0xbf000178: movt r9, #65535 @ 0xffff
> 0xbf00017c: adds r2, r2, r8
> 0xbf000180: adc r3, r3, r9
> 0xbf000184: mov r6, #5
> 0xbf000188: mov r7, #0
> 0xbf00018c: strd r6, [r11, #-8]
> 0xbf000190: ldrd r6, [r11, #-16]
Up to this point, it looks correct. r2/r3 contain the stack pointer
which corresponds to the instruction at "2:"
> 0xbf000194: lsl r2, r2, #24
> 0xbf000198: asr r2, r2, #24
> 0xbf00019c: str r2, [r11, #-16]
This then narrows the 64-bit pointer down to just 8!!! bits, but this
is what the instruction at "4:" is asking for. However, it looks like
it's happening to BPF's "r1" rather than "r3" and this is probably
where the problem lies.
I haven't got time to analyse this further this morning - I'm only
around sporadically today. I'll try to look deeper at this later on.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
