Hi,
On 10/22/2024 7:07 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2024 at 7:45 PM Hou Tao <houtao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 10/21/2024 9:40 AM, Hou Tao wrote:
>>> From: Hou Tao <houtao1@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> bpf_iter_bits_destroy() uses "kit->nr_bits <= 64" to check whether the
>>> bits are dynamically allocated. However, the check is incorrect and may
>>> cause a kmemleak as shown below:
>>>
>>> unreferenced object 0xffff88812628c8c0 (size 32):
>>> comm "swapper/0", pid 1, jiffies 4294727320
>>> hex dump (first 32 bytes):
>>> b0 c1 55 f5 81 88 ff ff f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 ..U.............
>>> f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
>>> backtrace (crc 781e32cc):
>>> [<00000000c452b4ab>] kmemleak_alloc+0x4b/0x80
>>> [<0000000004e09f80>] __kmalloc_node_noprof+0x480/0x5c0
>>> [<00000000597124d6>] __alloc.isra.0+0x89/0xb0
>>> [<000000004ebfffcd>] alloc_bulk+0x2af/0x720
>>> [<00000000d9c10145>] prefill_mem_cache+0x7f/0xb0
>>> [<00000000ff9738ff>] bpf_mem_alloc_init+0x3e2/0x610
>>> [<000000008b616eac>] bpf_global_ma_init+0x19/0x30
>>> [<00000000fc473efc>] do_one_initcall+0xd3/0x3c0
>>> [<00000000ec81498c>] kernel_init_freeable+0x66a/0x940
>>> [<00000000b119f72f>] kernel_init+0x20/0x160
>>> [<00000000f11ac9a7>] ret_from_fork+0x3c/0x70
>>> [<0000000004671da4>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
>>>
>>> That is because nr_bits will be set as zero in bpf_iter_bits_next()
>>> after all bits have been iterated.
>>>
>>> Fix the problem by not setting nr_bits to zero in bpf_iter_bits_next().
>>> Instead, use "bits >= nr_bits" to indicate when iteration is completed
>>> and still use "nr_bits > 64" to indicate when bits are dynamically
>>> allocated.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 4665415975b0 ("bpf: Add bits iterator")
>>> Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> kernel/bpf/helpers.c | 8 +++-----
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
>>> index 1a43d06eab28..62349e206a29 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
>>> @@ -2888,7 +2888,7 @@ bpf_iter_bits_new(struct bpf_iter_bits *it, const u64 *unsafe_ptr__ign, u32 nr_w
>>>
>>> kit->nr_bits = 0;
>>> kit->bits_copy = 0;
>>> - kit->bit = -1;
>>> + kit->bit = 0;
>> Sent the patch out in a hurry and didn't run the related test.
>>
>> The change above will break "fewer words" test in verifier_bits_iter,
>> because it will skip bit 0 in the bit. The correct fix should be as below:
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
>> index 1a43d06eab28..190b730e0f86 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
>> @@ -2934,15 +2934,13 @@ __bpf_kfunc int *bpf_iter_bits_next(struct
>> bpf_iter_bits *it)
>> const unsigned long *bits;
>> int bit;
>>
>> - if (nr_bits == 0)
>> + if (kit->bit >= 0 && kit->bit >= nr_bits)
> this looks quite weird. Maybe instead of this seemingly unnecessary
> `kit->bit >= 0` check, either add (int)nr_bits cast or just switch
> nr_bits from u32 to int?
OK. Will change nr_bits to int in the next revision.
>
>
> BTW,
>
> u32 nr_bytes = nr_words * sizeof(u64);
>
> seems like a problem, no? nr_words is u32, so this can overflow,
> please check and fix as well, while you are at it?
Will move it after the checking of nr_words in the following patch.
