This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
[PATCH stable/4.14 12/14] bpf: don't prune branches when a scalar is replaced with a pointer
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-don-t-prune-branches-when-a-scalar-is-replaced-with-a-pointer.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 16:23:10 +0100 Subject: [PATCH stable/4.14 12/14] bpf: don't prune branches when a scalar is replaced with a pointer To: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, jannh@google.com, stable@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: 20171222152312.2945-13-daniel@iogearbox.net
From: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net
From: Jann Horn jannh@google.com
[ Upstream commit 179d1c5602997fef5a940c6ddcf31212cbfebd14 ]
This could be made safe by passing through a reference to env and checking for env->allow_ptr_leaks, but it would only work one way and is probably not worth the hassle - not doing it will not directly lead to program rejection.
Fixes: f1174f77b50c ("bpf/verifier: rework value tracking") Signed-off-by: Jann Horn jannh@google.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 | 15 +++++++-------- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -3337,15 +3337,14 @@ static bool regsafe(struct bpf_reg_state return range_within(rold, rcur) && tnum_in(rold->var_off, rcur->var_off); } else { - /* if we knew anything about the old value, we're not - * equal, because we can't know anything about the - * scalar value of the pointer in the new value. + /* We're trying to use a pointer in place of a scalar. + * Even if the scalar was unbounded, this could lead to + * pointer leaks because scalars are allowed to leak + * while pointers are not. We could make this safe in + * special cases if root is calling us, but it's + * probably not worth the hassle. */ - return rold->umin_value == 0 && - rold->umax_value == U64_MAX && - rold->smin_value == S64_MIN && - rold->smax_value == S64_MAX && - tnum_is_unknown(rold->var_off); + return false; } case PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE: /* If the new min/max/var_off satisfy the old ones and
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