CVE-2022-49961

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

bpf: Do mark_chain_precision for ARG_CONST_ALLOC_SIZE_OR_ZERO

Precision markers need to be propagated whenever we have an ARG_CONST_* style argument, as the verifier cannot consider imprecise scalars to be equivalent for the purposes of states_equal check when such arguments refine the return value (in this case, set mem_size for PTR_TO_MEM). The resultant mem_size for the R0 is derived from the constant value, and if the verifier incorrectly prunes states considering them equivalent where such arguments exist (by seeing that both registers have reg->precise as false in regsafe), we can end up with invalid programs passing the verifier which can do access beyond what should have been the correct mem_size in that explored state.

To show a concrete example of the problem:

0000000000000000 : 0: r2 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 80) 1: r1 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 76) 2: r3 = r1 3: r3 += 4 4: if r3 > r2 goto +18 <LBB5_5> 5: w2 = 0 6: *(u32 *)(r1 + 0) = r2 7: r1 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 0) 8: r2 = 1 9: if w1 == 0 goto +1 <LBB5_3> 10: r2 = -1

0000000000000058 <LBB5_3>: 11: r1 = 0 ll 13: r3 = 0 14: call bpf_ringbuf_reserve 15: if r0 == 0 goto +7 <LBB5_5> 16: r1 = r0 17: r1 += 16777215 18: w2 = 0 19: *(u8 *)(r1 + 0) = r2 20: r1 = r0 21: r2 = 0 22: call bpf_ringbuf_submit

00000000000000b8 <LBB5_5>: 23: w0 = 0 24: exit

For the first case, the single line executions exploration will prune the search at insn 14 for the branch insn 9s second leg as it will be verified first using r2 = -1 (UINT_MAX), while as w1 at insn 9 will always be 0 so at runtime we dont get error for being greater than UINT_MAX/4 from bpf_ringbuf_reserve. The verifier during regsafe just sees reg->precise as false for both r2 registers in both states, hence considers them equal for purposes of states_equal.

If we propagated precise markers using the backtracking support, we would use the precise marking to then ensure that old r2 (UINT_MAX) was within the new r2 (1) and this would never be true, so the verification would rightfully fail.

The end result is that the out of bounds access at instruction 19 would be permitted without this fix.

Note that reg->precise is always set to true when user does not have CAP_BPF (or when subprog count is greater than 1 (i.e. use of any static or global functions)), hence this is only a problem when precision marks need to be explicitly propagated (i.e. privileged users with CAP_BPF).

A simplified test case has been included in the next patch to prevent future regressions.

Weakness

The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

• Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
• When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
• Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
• To reduce the likelihood of introducing an out-of-bounds read, ensure that you validate and ensure correct calculations for any length argument, buffer size calculation, or offset. Be especially careful of relying on a sentinel (i.e. special character such as NUL) in untrusted inputs.

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/540.html

References

• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/2459615a8d7f44ac81f0965bc094e55ccb254717
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/2fc31465c5373b5ca4edf2e5238558cb62902311