On 11/29/23 9:18 PM, Florian Westphal wrote:
D. Wythe <alibuda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
A malicious eBPF program can interrupt the subsequent processing of
a skb by returning an exceptional retval, and no one will be responsible
for releasing the very skb.
How? The bpf verifier is supposed to reject nf bpf programs that
return a value other than accept or drop.
If this is a real bug, please also figure out why
006c0e44ed92 ("selftests/bpf: add missing netfilter return value and ctx access tests")
failed to catch it.
Hi Florian,
You are right, i make a mistake.. , it's not a bug..
And my origin intention was to allow ebpf progs to return NF_STOLEN, we
are trying to modify some netfilter modules via ebpf,
and some scenarios require the use of NF_STOLEN, but from your
description, it seems that at least currently,
you do not want to return NF_STOLEN, until there is a helper for
sonsume_skb(), right ?
Again, very sorry to bother you.
Best wishes,
D. Wythe.
Moreover, normal programs can also have the demand to return NF_STOLEN,
No, this should be disallowed already.
net/netfilter/nf_bpf_link.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_bpf_link.c b/net/netfilter/nf_bpf_link.c
index e502ec0..03c47d6 100644
--- a/net/netfilter/nf_bpf_link.c
+++ b/net/netfilter/nf_bpf_link.c
@@ -12,12 +12,29 @@ static unsigned int nf_hook_run_bpf(void *bpf_prog, struct sk_buff *skb,
const struct nf_hook_state *s)
{
const struct bpf_prog *prog = bpf_prog;
+ unsigned int verdict;
struct bpf_nf_ctx ctx = {
.state = s,
.skb = skb,
};
- return bpf_prog_run(prog, &ctx);
+ verdict = bpf_prog_run(prog, &ctx);
+ switch (verdict) {
+ case NF_STOLEN:
+ consume_skb(skb);
+ fallthrough;
This can't be right. STOLEN really means STOLEN (free'd,
redirected, etc, "skb" MUST be "leaked".
Which is also why the bpf program is not allowed to return it.
