Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [bpf-next 3/3] bpf: Fix a use after free in bpf_check()
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
CC:     Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20210707043811.5349-1-hefengqing@huawei.com>
 <20210707043811.5349-4-hefengqing@huawei.com>
 <CAPhsuW7ssFzvS5-kdZa3tY-2EJk8QUdVpQCJYVBr+vD11JzrsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1c5b393d-6848-3d10-30cf-7063a331f76c@huawei.com>
 <CAADnVQJ0Q0dLVs5UM-CyJe90N+KHomccAy-S_LOOARa9nXkXsA@mail.gmail.com>
 <bc75c9c5-7479-5021-58ea-ed8cf53fb331@huawei.com>
 <CAADnVQJ2DnoC07XLki_=xPti7V=wH153tQb1bowP+xdLwn580w@mail.gmail.com>
 <21d8cd9e-487e-411f-1cfd-67cebc86b221@huawei.com>
 <CAADnVQ+XGGaXfte6aDdEp6euYckGtyP6S+VDUe4JusUz7xDLLg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   He Fengqing <hefengqing@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <cdb39df7-dbfa-c935-e819-97c2134dd2cf@huawei.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Jul 2021 09:53:46 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAADnVQ+XGGaXfte6aDdEp6euYckGtyP6S+VDUe4JusUz7xDLLg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


在 2021/7/14 7:17, Alexei Starovoitov 写道:
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 7:17 PM He Fengqing <hefengqing@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 在 2021/7/9 23:12, Alexei Starovoitov 写道:
>>> On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 4:11 AM He Fengqing <hefengqing@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 在 2021/7/8 11:09, Alexei Starovoitov 写道:
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 8:00 PM He Fengqing <hefengqing@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, I will change this in next version.
>>>>>
>>>>> before you spam the list with the next version
>>>>> please explain why any of these changes are needed?
>>>>> I don't see an explanation in the patches and I don't see a bug in the code.
>>>>> Did you check what is the prog clone ?
>>>>> When is it constructed? Why verifier has anything to do with it?
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry, I didn't describe these errors clearly.
>>>>
>>>> bpf_check(bpf_verifier_env)
>>>>        |
>>>>        |->do_misc_fixups(env)
>>>>        |    |
>>>>        |    |->bpf_patch_insn_data(env)
>>>>        |    |    |
>>>>        |    |    |->bpf_patch_insn_single(env->prog)
>>>>        |    |    |    |
>>>>        |    |    |    |->bpf_prog_realloc(env->prog)
>>>>        |    |    |    |    |
>>>>        |    |    |    |    |->construct new_prog
>>>>        |    |    |    |    |    free old_prog(env->prog)
>>>>        |    |    |    |    |
>>>>        |    |    |    |    |->return new_prog;
>>>>        |    |    |    |
>>>>        |    |    |    |->return new_prog;
>>>>        |    |    |
>>>>        |    |    |->adjust_insn_aux_data
>>>>        |    |    |    |
>>>>        |    |    |    |->return ENOMEM;
>>>>        |    |    |
>>>>        |    |    |->return NULL;
>>>>        |    |
>>>>        |    |->return ENOMEM;
>>>>
>>>> bpf_verifier_env->prog had been freed in bpf_prog_realloc function.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are two errors here, the first is memleak in the
>>>> bpf_patch_insn_data function, and the second is use after free in the
>>>> bpf_check function.
>>>>
>>>> memleak in bpf_patch_insn_data:
>>>>
>>>> Look at the call chain above, if adjust_insn_aux_data function return
>>>> ENOMEM, bpf_patch_insn_data will return NULL, but we do not free the
>>>> new_prog.
>>>>
>>>> So in the patch 2, before bpf_patch_insn_data return NULL, we free the
>>>> new_prog.
>>>>
>>>> use after free in bpf_check:
>>>>
>>>> If bpf_patch_insn_data function return NULL, we will not assign new_prog
>>>> to the bpf_verifier_env->prog, but bpf_verifier_env->prog has been freed
>>>> in the bpf_prog_realloc function. Then in bpf_check function, we will
>>>> use bpf_verifier_env->prog after do_misc_fixups function.
>>>>
>>>> In the patch 3, I added a free_old parameter to bpf_prog_realloc, in
>>>> this scenario we don't free old_prog. Instead, we free it in the
>>>> do_misc_fixups function when bpf_patch_insn_data return a valid new_prog.
>>>
>>> Thanks for explaining.
>>> Why not to make adjust_insn_aux_data() in bpf_patch_insn_data() first then?
>>> Just changing the order will resolve both issues, no?
>>> .
>>>
>> adjust_insn_aux_data() need the new constructed new_prog as an input
>> parameter, so we must call bpf_patch_insn_single() before
>> adjust_insn_aux_data().
> 
> Right. I forgot about insn_has_def32() logic and
> commit b325fbca4b13 ("bpf: verifier: mark patched-insn with
> sub-register zext flag")
> that added that extra parameter.
> 
>> But we can make adjust_insn_aux_data() never return ENOMEM. In
>> bpf_patch_insn_data(), first we pre-malloc memory for new aux_data, then
>> call bpf_patch_insn_single() to constructed the new_prog, at last call
>> adjust_insn_aux_data() functin. In this way, adjust_insn_aux_data()
>> never fails.
>>
>> bpf_patch_insn_data(env) {
>>          struct bpf_insn_aux_data *new_data = vzalloc();
>>          struct bpf_prog *new_prog;
>>          if (new_data == NULL)
>>                  return NULL;
>>
>>          new_prog = bpf_patch_insn_single(env->prog);
>>          if (new_prog == NULL) {
>>                  vfree(new_data);
>>                  return NULL;
>>          }
>>
>>          adjust_insn_aux_data(new_prog, new_data);
>>          return new_prog;
>> }
>> What do you think about it?
> 
> That's a good idea. Let's do that. The new size for vzalloc is easy to compute.
> What should be the commit in the Fixes tag?
> commit 8041902dae52 ("bpf: adjust insn_aux_data when patching insns")
> right?

Ok, I will add this in the commit message.

> 4 year old bug then.
> I wonder why syzbot with malloc error injection didn't catch it sooner.
> .
>