Overview
About vulnerability
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Don’t use tnum_range on array range checking for poke descriptors
Hsin-Wei reported a KASAN splat triggered by their BPF runtime fuzzer which is based on a customized syzkaller:
BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in bpf_int_jit_compile+0x1257/0x13f0
Read of size 8 at addr ffff888004e90b58 by task syz-executor.0/1489
CPU: 1 PID: 1489 Comm: syz-executor.0 Not tainted 5.19.0 #1
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS
1.13.0-1ubuntu1.1 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
The problem here is that a range of tnum_range(0, map->max_entries - 1) has limited ability to represent the concrete tight range with the tnum as the set of resulting states from value + mask can result in a superset of the actual intended range, and as such a tnum_in(range, reg->var_off) check may yield true when it shouldn’t, for example tnum_range(0, 2) would result in 00XX -> v = 0000, m = 0011 such that the intended set of {0, 1, 2} is here represented by a less precise superset of {0, 1, 2, 3}. As the register is known const scalar, really just use the concrete reg->var_off.value for the upper index check.
Details
- Affected product:
- CentOS 8.4 ELS , CentOS 8.5 ELS , CentOS Stream 8 ELS
- Affected packages:
- kernel @ 4.18.0 (+2 more)
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Don’t use tnum_range on array range checking for poke descriptors
Hsin-Wei reported a KASAN splat triggered by their BPF runtime fuzzer which is based on a customized syzkaller:
BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in bpf_int_jit_compile+0x1257/0x13f0
Read of size 8 at addr ffff888004e90b58 by task syz-executor.0/1489
CPU: 1 PID: 1489 Comm: syz-executor.0 Not tainted 5.19.0 #1
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS
1.13.0-1ubuntu1.1 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
The problem here is that a range of tnum_range(0, map->max_entries - 1) has limited ability to represent the concrete tight range with the tnum as the set of resulting states from value + mask can result in a superset of the actual intended range, and as such a tnum_in(range, reg->var_off) check may yield true when it shouldn’t, for example tnum_range(0, 2) would result in 00XX -> v = 0000, m = 0011 such that the intended set of {0, 1, 2} is here represented by a less precise superset of {0, 1, 2, 3}. As the register is known const scalar, really just use the concrete reg->var_off.value for the upper index check.