On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 09:38:43AM +0200, 'Dmitry Vyukov' via Clang Built Linux wrote: > On Sat, Jun 5, 2021 at 9:10 PM Alexei Starovoitov > <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 5, 2021 at 10:55 AM Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 6/5/21 8:01 AM, Kurt Manucredo wrote: > > > > Syzbot detects a shift-out-of-bounds in ___bpf_prog_run() > > > > kernel/bpf/core.c:1414:2. > > > > > > This is not enough. We need more information on why this happens > > > so we can judge whether the patch indeed fixed the issue. > > > > > > > > > > > I propose: In adjust_scalar_min_max_vals() move boundary check up to avoid > > > > missing them and return with error when detected. > > > > > > > > Reported-and-tested-by: syzbot+bed360704c521841c85d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > Signed-off-by: Kurt Manucredo <fuzzybritches0@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > > > > > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=edb51be4c9a320186328893287bb30d5eed09231 > > > > > > > > Changelog: > > > > ---------- > > > > v4 - Fix shift-out-of-bounds in adjust_scalar_min_max_vals. > > > > Fix commit message. > > > > v3 - Make it clearer what the fix is for. > > > > v2 - Fix shift-out-of-bounds in ___bpf_prog_run() by adding boundary > > > > check in check_alu_op() in verifier.c. > > > > v1 - Fix shift-out-of-bounds in ___bpf_prog_run() by adding boundary > > > > check in ___bpf_prog_run(). > > > > > > > > thanks > > > > > > > > kind regards > > > > > > > > Kurt > > > > > > > > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 30 +++++++++--------------------- > > > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > > > > index 94ba5163d4c5..ed0eecf20de5 100644 > > > > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > > > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > > > > @@ -7510,6 +7510,15 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, > > > > u32_min_val = src_reg.u32_min_value; > > > > u32_max_val = src_reg.u32_max_value; > > > > > > > > + if ((opcode == BPF_LSH || opcode == BPF_RSH || opcode == BPF_ARSH) && > > > > + umax_val >= insn_bitness) { > > > > + /* Shifts greater than 31 or 63 are undefined. > > > > + * This includes shifts by a negative number. > > > > + */ > > > > + verbose(env, "invalid shift %lld\n", umax_val); > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > + } > > > > > > I think your fix is good. I would like to move after > > > > I suspect such change will break valid programs that do shift by register. > > > > > the following code though: > > > > > > if (!src_known && > > > opcode != BPF_ADD && opcode != BPF_SUB && opcode != BPF_AND) { > > > __mark_reg_unknown(env, dst_reg); > > > return 0; > > > } > > > > > > > + > > > > if (alu32) { > > > > src_known = tnum_subreg_is_const(src_reg.var_off); > > > > if ((src_known && > > > > @@ -7592,39 +7601,18 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, > > > > scalar_min_max_xor(dst_reg, &src_reg); > > > > break; > > > > case BPF_LSH: > > > > - if (umax_val >= insn_bitness) { > > > > - /* Shifts greater than 31 or 63 are undefined. > > > > - * This includes shifts by a negative number. > > > > - */ > > > > - mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, insn->dst_reg); > > > > - break; > > > > - } > > > > > > I think this is what happens. For the above case, we simply > > > marks the dst reg as unknown and didn't fail verification. > > > So later on at runtime, the shift optimization will have wrong > > > shift value (> 31/64). Please correct me if this is not right > > > analysis. As I mentioned in the early please write detailed > > > analysis in commit log. > > > > The large shift is not wrong. It's just undefined. > > syzbot has to ignore such cases. > > Hi Alexei, > > The report is produced by KUBSAN. I thought there was an agreement on > cleaning up KUBSAN reports from the kernel (the subset enabled on > syzbot at least). > What exactly cases should KUBSAN ignore? > +linux-hardening/kasan-dev for KUBSAN false positive Can check_shl_overflow() be used at all? Best to just make things readable and compiler-happy, whatever the implementation. :) -- Kees Cook
