Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3] bpf: check attach_func_proto more carefully in check_return_code

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 10:50:00AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> Syzkaller reports the following crash:
> RIP: 0010:check_return_code kernel/bpf/verifier.c:10575 [inline]
> RIP: 0010:do_check kernel/bpf/verifier.c:12346 [inline]
> RIP: 0010:do_check_common+0xb3d2/0xd250 kernel/bpf/verifier.c:14610
> 
> With the following reproducer:
> bpf$PROG_LOAD_XDP(0x5, &(0x7f00000004c0)={0xd, 0x3, &(0x7f0000000000)=ANY=[@ANYBLOB="1800000000000019000000000000000095"], &(0x7f0000000300)='GPL\x00', 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, '\x00', 0x0, 0x2b, 0xffffffffffffffff, 0x8, 0x0, 0x0, 0x10, 0x0}, 0x80)
> 
> Because we don't enforce expected_attach_type for XDP programs,
> we end up in hitting 'if (prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_LSM_CGROUP'
> part in check_return_code and follow up with testing
> `prog->aux->attach_func_proto->type`, but `prog->aux->attach_func_proto`
> is NULL.
> 
> Add explicit prog_type check for the "Note, BPF_LSM_CGROUP that
> attach ..." condition. Also, don't skip return code check for
> LSM/STRUCT_OPS.
> 
> The above actually brings an issue with existing selftest which
> tries to return EPERM from void inet_csk_clone. Fix the
> test (and move called_socket_clone to make sure it's not
> incremented in case of an error) and add a new one to explicitly
> verify this condition.
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@xxxxxx>



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux