CVE-2024-49888

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

bpf: Fix a sdiv overflow issue

Zac Ecob reported a problem where a bpf program may cause kernel crash due to the following error: Oops: divide error: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN PTI

The failure is due to the below signed divide: LLONG_MIN/-1 where LLONG_MIN equals to -9,223,372,036,854,775,808. LLONG_MIN/-1 is supposed to give a positive number 9,223,372,036,854,775,808, but it is impossible since for 64-bit system, the maximum positive number is 9,223,372,036,854,775,807. On x86_64, LLONG_MIN/-1 will cause a kernel exception. On arm64, the result for LLONG_MIN/-1 is LLONG_MIN.

Further investigation found all the following sdiv/smod cases may trigger an exception when bpf program is running on x86_64 platform:

• LLONG_MIN/-1 for 64bit operation
• INT_MIN/-1 for 32bit operation
• LLONG_MIN%-1 for 64bit operation
• INT_MIN%-1 for 32bit operation where -1 can be an immediate or in a register.

On arm64, there are no exceptions:

• LLONG_MIN/-1 = LLONG_MIN
• INT_MIN/-1 = INT_MIN
• LLONG_MIN%-1 = 0
• INT_MIN%-1 = 0 where -1 can be an immediate or in a register.

Insn patching is needed to handle the above cases and the patched codes produced results aligned with above arm64 result. The below are pseudo codes to handle sdiv/smod exceptions including both divisor -1 and divisor 0 and the divisor is stored in a register.

sdiv: tmp = rX tmp += 1 /* [-1, 0] -> [0, 1] if tmp >(unsigned) 1 goto L2 if tmp == 0 goto L1 rY = 0 L1: rY = -rY; goto L3 L2: rY /= rX L3:

smod: tmp = rX tmp += 1 /* [-1, 0] -> [0, 1] if tmp >(unsigned) 1 goto L1 if tmp == 1 (is64 ? goto L2 : goto L3) rY = 0; goto L2 L1: rY %= rX L2: goto L4 // only when !is64 L3: wY = wY // only when !is64 L4:

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/tPJLTEh7S_DxFEqAI2Ji5MBSoZVg7_G-Py2iaZpAaWtM961fFTWtsnlzwvTbzBzaUzwQAoNATXKUlt0LZOFgnDcIyKCswAnAGdUF3LBrhGQ=@protonmail.com/

Weakness

The product performs a calculation that can produce an integer overflow or wraparound, when the logic assumes that the resulting value will always be larger than the original value. This can introduce other weaknesses when the calculation is used for resource management or execution control.

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

• Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
• If possible, choose a language or compiler that performs automatic bounds checking.
• Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
• Use libraries or frameworks that make it easier to handle numbers without unexpected consequences.
• Examples include safe integer handling packages such as SafeInt (C++) or IntegerLib (C or C++). [REF-106]
• Perform input validation on any numeric input by ensuring that it is within the expected range. Enforce that the input meets both the minimum and maximum requirements for the expected range.
• Use unsigned integers where possible. This makes it easier to perform validation for integer overflows. When signed integers are required, ensure that the range check includes minimum values as well as maximum values.
• Understand the programming language’s underlying representation and how it interacts with numeric calculation (CWE-681). Pay close attention to byte size discrepancies, precision, signed/unsigned distinctions, truncation, conversion and casting between types, “not-a-number” calculations, and how the language handles numbers that are too large or too small for its underlying representation. [REF-7]
• Also be careful to account for 32-bit, 64-bit, and other potential differences that may affect the numeric representation.

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/92.html

References

• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/4902a6a0dc593c82055fc8c9ada371bafe26c9cc
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/7dd34d7b7dcf9309fc6224caf4dd5b35bedddcb7
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d22e45a369afc7c28f11acfa5b5e8e478227ca5d