mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
To: Nuoqi Gui <gnq25@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	 Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
	Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
	Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
	Emil Tsalapatis <emil@etsalapatis.com>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	 linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/2] bpf, verifier: fold reg->var_off into PTR_TO_FLOW_KEYS bounds check
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2026 13:33:46 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <562b1652176c8f40dd24027d0e0d44ddae800353.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260606-c3-01-v3-v3-1-97c51f592f15@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn>

On Sat, 2026-06-06 at 18:50 +0800, Nuoqi Gui wrote:
> Constant pointer arithmetic on a PTR_TO_FLOW_KEYS register lands the
> constant in reg->var_off (e.g. flow_keys(imm=4096)), but the
> PTR_TO_FLOW_KEYS path in check_mem_access() passes only insn->off to
> check_flow_keys_access() and never folds reg->var_off.value.  The
> verifier therefore accepts an access that, at runtime, dereferences past
> struct bpf_flow_keys -- a verifier/runtime divergence that yields an
> out-of-bounds read and write of kernel stack memory.
> 
> Commit 022ac0750883 ("bpf: use reg->var_off instead of reg->off for
> pointers") removed the generic "off += reg->off" that check_mem_access()
> applied before the per-type dispatch and replaced it with per-path
> folding of reg->var_off.value (for example the ctx path now folds the
> register offset via check_ctx_access()).  The PTR_TO_FLOW_KEYS path was
> not given the equivalent fold, so a constant offset that used to be
> folded and rejected is now silently accepted:
> 
>   before 022ac0750883: the offset stays in reg->off and is folded
>     generically, so the access is checked with off=4096 and rejected.
>   after  022ac0750883: the offset lands in reg->var_off, the flow_keys
>     path checks off=0 and accepts; at runtime the access dereferences
>     base + 0x1000.
> 
> For a BPF_PROG_TYPE_FLOW_DISSECTOR program the following is accepted:
> 
>   r2 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 144)   ; R2=flow_keys (PTR_TO_FLOW_KEYS)
>   r2 += 0x1000              ; R2=flow_keys(imm=4096), accepted
>   r0 = *(u64 *)(r2 + 0)     ; accepted, var_off.value=0x1000 ignored
> 
> while the equivalent insn->off form
> 
>   r0 = *(u64 *)(r2 + 0x1000)
> 
> has the same effective offset but is correctly rejected with
> "invalid access to flow keys off=4096 size=8", which isolates the defect
> to the missing var_off fold.  Once attached as a flow dissector, the
> accepted program reads kernel stack past struct bpf_flow_keys (a
> kernel-stack / KASLR information leak) and can likewise write past it,
> corrupting kernel memory.
> 
> Fix it by folding reg->var_off.value into the offset before the bounds
> check and rejecting non-constant offsets, mirroring the other pointer
> types (e.g. check_ctx_access()).
> 
> No released kernel is affected; the regression is confined to the 7.1
> development cycle (reproduced on v7.1-rc1..rc5), and v7.0.x rejects the
> program above.
> 
> Fixes: 022ac0750883 ("bpf: use reg->var_off instead of reg->off for pointers")
> Signed-off-by: Nuoqi Gui <gnq25@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn>
> ---

Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>

[...]

  reply	other threads:[~2026-06-06 20:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-06-06 10:50 [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/2] bpf, verifier: fix PTR_TO_FLOW_KEYS constant-offset OOB Nuoqi Gui
2026-06-06 10:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/2] bpf, verifier: fold reg->var_off into PTR_TO_FLOW_KEYS bounds check Nuoqi Gui
2026-06-06 20:33   ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2026-06-06 10:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/2] selftests/bpf: add tests for PTR_TO_FLOW_KEYS offset bounds Nuoqi Gui
2026-06-06 11:32   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-06-06 20:34   ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-06-07  0:00 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/2] bpf, verifier: fix PTR_TO_FLOW_KEYS constant-offset OOB patchwork-bot+netdevbpf

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=562b1652176c8f40dd24027d0e0d44ddae800353.camel@gmail.com \
    --to=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
    --cc=gnq25@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --cc=memxor@gmail.com \
    --cc=shuah@kernel.org \
    --cc=song@kernel.org \
    --cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®