From: Xu Kuohai <[email protected]>
Function __copy_map_value and zero_map_value miscalculated copy offset,
resulting in possible copy of unwanted data to user or kernel.
Fix it.
Fixes: cc48755808c6 ("bpf: Add zero_map_value to zero map value with special fields")
Fixes: 4d7d7f69f4b1 ("bpf: Adapt copy_map_value for multiple offset case")
Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai <[email protected]>
---
include/linux/bpf.h | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
index 74c6f449d81e..c1bd1bd10506 100644
--- a/include/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
@@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ static inline void __copy_map_value(struct bpf_map *map, void *dst, void *src, b
u32 next_off = map->off_arr->field_off[i];
memcpy(dst + curr_off, src + curr_off, next_off - curr_off);
- curr_off += map->off_arr->field_sz[i];
+ curr_off = next_off + map->off_arr->field_sz[i];
}
memcpy(dst + curr_off, src + curr_off, map->value_size - curr_off);
}
@@ -344,7 +344,7 @@ static inline void zero_map_value(struct bpf_map *map, void *dst)
u32 next_off = map->off_arr->field_off[i];
memset(dst + curr_off, 0, next_off - curr_off);
- curr_off += map->off_arr->field_sz[i];
+ curr_off = next_off + map->off_arr->field_sz[i];
}
memset(dst + curr_off, 0, map->value_size - curr_off);
}
--
2.30.2
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 06:26:20PM IST, Xu Kuohai wrote:
> From: Xu Kuohai <[email protected]>
>
> Function __copy_map_value and zero_map_value miscalculated copy offset,
> resulting in possible copy of unwanted data to user or kernel.
>
> Fix it.
>
> Fixes: cc48755808c6 ("bpf: Add zero_map_value to zero map value with special fields")
> Fixes: 4d7d7f69f4b1 ("bpf: Adapt copy_map_value for multiple offset case")
> Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai <[email protected]>
> ---
Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <[email protected]>
I also have a fix here for bpf-next, since this won't apply to it:
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]
I think it'd be best if this one gets applied to bpf and mine to bpf-next, and
any conflicts are resolved when merging both trees (the conflict is trivial),
but I'll leave it up to the maintainers to decide.
On 11/11, Xu Kuohai wrote:
> From: Xu Kuohai <[email protected]>
> Function __copy_map_value and zero_map_value miscalculated copy offset,
> resulting in possible copy of unwanted data to user or kernel.
> Fix it.
> Fixes: cc48755808c6 ("bpf: Add zero_map_value to zero map value with
> special fields")
> Fixes: 4d7d7f69f4b1 ("bpf: Adapt copy_map_value for multiple offset case")
> Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai <[email protected]>
> ---
> include/linux/bpf.h | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
> index 74c6f449d81e..c1bd1bd10506 100644
> --- a/include/linux/bpf.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
> @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ static inline void __copy_map_value(struct bpf_map
> *map, void *dst, void *src, b
> u32 next_off = map->off_arr->field_off[i];
> memcpy(dst + curr_off, src + curr_off, next_off - curr_off);
> - curr_off += map->off_arr->field_sz[i];
> + curr_off = next_off + map->off_arr->field_sz[i];
> }
> memcpy(dst + curr_off, src + curr_off, map->value_size - curr_off);
> }
> @@ -344,7 +344,7 @@ static inline void zero_map_value(struct bpf_map
> *map, void *dst)
> u32 next_off = map->off_arr->field_off[i];
> memset(dst + curr_off, 0, next_off - curr_off);
> - curr_off += map->off_arr->field_sz[i];
> + curr_off = next_off + map->off_arr->field_sz[i];
> }
> memset(dst + curr_off, 0, map->value_size - curr_off);
> }
Hmm, does it mean that it currently works only for the cases where
these special fields are first/last?
Also, what about bpf-next? The same problem seem to exist there?
Might be a good idea to have some selftest to exercise this?
> --
> 2.30.2
Hello:
This patch was applied to bpf/bpf.git (master)
by Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]>:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 07:56:20 -0500 you wrote:
> From: Xu Kuohai <[email protected]>
>
> Function __copy_map_value and zero_map_value miscalculated copy offset,
> resulting in possible copy of unwanted data to user or kernel.
>
> Fix it.
>
> [...]
Here is the summary with links:
- [bpf] bpf: Fix offset calculation error in __copy_map_value and zero_map_value
https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf/c/1f6e04a1c7b8
You are awesome, thank you!
--
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html
On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 12:47:52AM IST, [email protected] wrote:
> On 11/11, Xu Kuohai wrote:
> > From: Xu Kuohai <[email protected]>
>
> > Function __copy_map_value and zero_map_value miscalculated copy offset,
> > resulting in possible copy of unwanted data to user or kernel.
>
> > Fix it.
>
> > Fixes: cc48755808c6 ("bpf: Add zero_map_value to zero map value with
> > special fields")
> > Fixes: 4d7d7f69f4b1 ("bpf: Adapt copy_map_value for multiple offset case")
> > Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > include/linux/bpf.h | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> > diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
> > index 74c6f449d81e..c1bd1bd10506 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/bpf.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
> > @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ static inline void __copy_map_value(struct bpf_map
> > *map, void *dst, void *src, b
> > u32 next_off = map->off_arr->field_off[i];
>
> > memcpy(dst + curr_off, src + curr_off, next_off - curr_off);
> > - curr_off += map->off_arr->field_sz[i];
> > + curr_off = next_off + map->off_arr->field_sz[i];
> > }
> > memcpy(dst + curr_off, src + curr_off, map->value_size - curr_off);
> > }
> > @@ -344,7 +344,7 @@ static inline void zero_map_value(struct bpf_map
> > *map, void *dst)
> > u32 next_off = map->off_arr->field_off[i];
>
> > memset(dst + curr_off, 0, next_off - curr_off);
> > - curr_off += map->off_arr->field_sz[i];
> > + curr_off = next_off + map->off_arr->field_sz[i];
> > }
> > memset(dst + curr_off, 0, map->value_size - curr_off);
> > }
>
> Hmm, does it mean that it currently works only for the cases where
> these special fields are first/last?
>
> Also, what about bpf-next? The same problem seem to exist there?
>
Replied with the patch in the other email.
> Might be a good idea to have some selftest to exercise this?
>
I agree, there was another bug in the same code before this, so I think we
should add tests for this (I should have done that with the commit being
fixed...).
Xu, if you have cycles, can you work on testing a few edge cases and make sure
we don't regress in the future? Otherwise I will take a look next week.