This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
[PATCH stable/4.14 08/14] bpf: fix incorrect tracking of register size truncation
to the 4.14-stable tree which can be found at: http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git%3Ba=su...
The filename of the patch is: bpf-fix-incorrect-tracking-of-register-size-truncation.patch and it can be found in the queue-4.14 subdirectory.
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, please let stable@vger.kernel.org know about it.
From foo@baz Fri Dec 22 16:47:02 CET 2017
From: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 16:23:06 +0100 Subject: [PATCH stable/4.14 08/14] bpf: fix incorrect tracking of register size truncation To: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, jannh@google.com, stable@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: 20171222152312.2945-9-daniel@iogearbox.net
From: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net
From: Jann Horn jannh@google.com
[ Upstream commit 0c17d1d2c61936401f4702e1846e2c19b200f958 ]
Properly handle register truncation to a smaller size.
The old code first mirrors the clearing of the high 32 bits in the bitwise tristate representation, which is correct. But then, it computes the new arithmetic bounds as the intersection between the old arithmetic bounds and the bounds resulting from the bitwise tristate representation. Therefore, when coerce_reg_to_32() is called on a number with bounds [0xffff'fff8, 0x1'0000'0007], the verifier computes [0xffff'fff8, 0xffff'ffff] as bounds of the truncated number. This is incorrect: The truncated number could also be in the range [0, 7], and no meaningful arithmetic bounds can be computed in that case apart from the obvious [0, 0xffff'ffff].
Starting with v4.14, this is exploitable by unprivileged users as long as the unprivileged_bpf_disabled sysctl isn't set.
Debian assigned CVE-2017-16996 for this issue.
v2: - flip the mask during arithmetic bounds calculation (Ben Hutchings) v3: - add CVE number (Ben Hutchings)
Fixes: b03c9f9fdc37 ("bpf/verifier: track signed and unsigned min/max values") Signed-off-by: Jann Horn jannh@google.com Acked-by: Edward Cree ecree@solarflare.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov ast@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -1068,6 +1068,29 @@ static int check_ptr_alignment(struct bp return check_generic_ptr_alignment(reg, pointer_desc, off, size, strict); }
+/* truncate register to smaller size (in bytes) + * must be called with size < BPF_REG_SIZE + */ +static void coerce_reg_to_size(struct bpf_reg_state *reg, int size) +{ + u64 mask; + + /* clear high bits in bit representation */ + reg->var_off = tnum_cast(reg->var_off, size); + + /* fix arithmetic bounds */ + mask = ((u64)1 << (size * 8)) - 1; + if ((reg->umin_value & ~mask) == (reg->umax_value & ~mask)) { + reg->umin_value &= mask; + reg->umax_value &= mask; + } else { + reg->umin_value = 0; + reg->umax_value = mask; + } + reg->smin_value = reg->umin_value; + reg->smax_value = reg->umax_value; +} + /* check whether memory at (regno + off) is accessible for t = (read | write) * if t==write, value_regno is a register which value is stored into memory * if t==read, value_regno is a register which will receive the value from memory @@ -1200,9 +1223,7 @@ static int check_mem_access(struct bpf_v if (!err && size < BPF_REG_SIZE && value_regno >= 0 && t == BPF_READ && state->regs[value_regno].type == SCALAR_VALUE) { /* b/h/w load zero-extends, mark upper bits as known 0 */ - state->regs[value_regno].var_off = tnum_cast( - state->regs[value_regno].var_off, size); - __update_reg_bounds(&state->regs[value_regno]); + coerce_reg_to_size(&state->regs[value_regno], size); } return err; } @@ -1742,14 +1763,6 @@ static int check_call(struct bpf_verifie return 0; }
-static void coerce_reg_to_32(struct bpf_reg_state *reg) -{ - /* clear high 32 bits */ - reg->var_off = tnum_cast(reg->var_off, 4); - /* Update bounds */ - __update_reg_bounds(reg); -} - static bool signed_add_overflows(s64 a, s64 b) { /* Do the add in u64, where overflow is well-defined */ @@ -1984,8 +1997,8 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(st
if (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) != BPF_ALU64) { /* 32-bit ALU ops are (32,32)->64 */ - coerce_reg_to_32(dst_reg); - coerce_reg_to_32(&src_reg); + coerce_reg_to_size(dst_reg, 4); + coerce_reg_to_size(&src_reg, 4); } smin_val = src_reg.smin_value; smax_val = src_reg.smax_value; @@ -2364,10 +2377,7 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verif return -EACCES; } mark_reg_unknown(regs, insn->dst_reg); - /* high 32 bits are known zero. */ - regs[insn->dst_reg].var_off = tnum_cast( - regs[insn->dst_reg].var_off, 4); - __update_reg_bounds(®s[insn->dst_reg]); + coerce_reg_to_size(®s[insn->dst_reg], 4); } } else { /* case: R = imm
Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from daniel@iogearbox.net are
queue-4.14/bpf-fix-integer-overflows.patch queue-4.14/bpf-fix-branch-pruning-logic.patch queue-4.14/bpf-s390x-do-not-reload-skb-pointers-in-non-skb-context.patch queue-4.14/bpf-sparc-fix-usage-of-wrong-reg-for-load_skb_regs-after-call.patch queue-4.14/bpf-fix-incorrect-tracking-of-register-size-truncation.patch queue-4.14/bpf-don-t-prune-branches-when-a-scalar-is-replaced-with-a-pointer.patch queue-4.14/bpf-verifier-fix-bounds-calculation-on-bpf_rsh.patch queue-4.14/selftests-bpf-add-tests-for-recent-bugfixes.patch queue-4.14/bpf-fix-corruption-on-concurrent-perf_event_output-calls.patch queue-4.14/bpf-fix-incorrect-sign-extension-in-check_alu_op.patch queue-4.14/bpf-ppc64-do-not-reload-skb-pointers-in-non-skb-context.patch queue-4.14/bpf-fix-missing-error-return-in-check_stack_boundary.patch queue-4.14/bpf-force-strict-alignment-checks-for-stack-pointers.patch queue-4.14/bpf-fix-32-bit-alu-op-verification.patch queue-4.14/bpf-fix-build-issues-on-um-due-to-mising-bpf_perf_event.h.patch