We are utilizing BPF LSM to monitor BPF operations within our container
environment. When we add support for raw_tracepoint, it hits below
error.
; (const void *)attr->raw_tracepoint.name);
27: (79) r3 = *(u64 *)(r2 +0)
access beyond the end of member map_type (mend:4) in struct (anon) with off 0 size 8
It can be reproduced with below BPF prog.
SEC("lsm/bpf")
int BPF_PROG(bpf_audit, int cmd, union bpf_attr *attr, unsigned int size)
{
switch (cmd) {
case BPF_RAW_TRACEPOINT_OPEN:
bpf_printk("raw_tracepoint is %s", attr->raw_tracepoint.name);
break;
default:
break;
}
return 0;
}
The reason is that when accessing a field in a union, such as bpf_attr,
if the field is located within a nested struct that is not the first
member of the union, it can result in incorrect field verification.
union bpf_attr {
struct {
__u32 map_type; <<<< Actually it will find that field.
__u32 key_size;
__u32 value_size;
...
};
...
struct {
__u64 name; <<<< We want to verify this field.
__u32 prog_fd;
} raw_tracepoint;
};
Considering the potential deep nesting levels, finding a perfect
solution to address this issue has proven challenging. Therefore, I
propose a solution where we simply skip the verification process if the
field in question is located within a union.
Fixes: 7e3617a72df3 ("bpf: Add array support to btf_struct_access")
Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/bpf/btf.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
index e0a493230727..8ad27b16bc8b 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
@@ -6366,7 +6366,7 @@ static int btf_struct_walk(struct bpf_verifier_log *log, const struct btf *btf,
* that also allows using an array of int as a scratch
* space. e.g. skb->cb[].
*/
- if (off + size > mtrue_end) {
+ if (off + size > mtrue_end && !(*flag & PTR_UNTRUSTED)) {
bpf_log(log,
"access beyond the end of member %s (mend:%u) in struct %s with off %u size %u\n",
mname, mtrue_end, tname, off, size);
--
2.39.3
