GHSA-W5H4-C4XX-3R8P

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-05-21 15:31 – Updated: 2024-12-26 21:30
VLAI
Details

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

bpf: Fix tail_call_reachable rejection for interpreter when jit failed

During testing of f263a81451c1 ("bpf: Track subprog poke descriptors correctly and fix use-after-free") under various failure conditions, for example, when jit_subprogs() fails and tries to clean up the program to be run under the interpreter, we ran into the following freeze:

[...] #127/8 tailcall_bpf2bpf_3:FAIL [...] [ 92.041251] BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in bpfprog_run+0x1b9d/0x2e20 [ 92.042408] Read of size 8 at addr ffff88800da67f68 by task test_progs/682 [ 92.043707] [ 92.044030] CPU: 1 PID: 682 Comm: test_progs Tainted: G O 5.13.0-53301-ge6c08cb33a30-dirty #87 [ 92.045542] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.13.0-1ubuntu1 04/01/2014 [ 92.046785] Call Trace: [ 92.047171] ? bpf_prog_run_args64+0xc0/0xc0 [ 92.047773] ? __bpf_prog_run_args32+0x8b/0xb0 [ 92.048389] ? __bpf_prog_run_args64+0xc0/0xc0 [ 92.049019] ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130 [...] // few hundred [similar] lines more [ 92.659025] ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130 [ 92.659845] ? __bpf_prog_run_args64+0xc0/0xc0 [ 92.660738] ? __bpf_prog_run_args32+0x8b/0xb0 [ 92.661528] ? __bpf_prog_run_args64+0xc0/0xc0 [ 92.662378] ? print_usage_bug+0x50/0x50 [ 92.663221] ? print_usage_bug+0x50/0x50 [ 92.664077] ? bpf_ksym_find+0x9c/0xe0 [ 92.664887] ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130 [ 92.665624] ? kernel_text_address+0xf5/0x100 [ 92.666529] ? __kernel_text_address+0xe/0x30 [ 92.667725] ? unwind_get_return_address+0x2f/0x50 [ 92.668854] ? bpfprog_run+0x15d4/0x2e20 [ 92.670185] ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130 [ 92.671130] ? bpf_prog_run_args64+0xc0/0xc0 [ 92.672020] ? __bpf_prog_run_args32+0x8b/0xb0 [ 92.672860] ? __bpf_prog_run_args64+0xc0/0xc0 [ 92.675159] ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130 [ 92.677074] ? lock_is_held_type+0xd5/0x130 [ 92.678662] ? bpfprog_run+0x15d4/0x2e20 [ 92.680046] ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130 [ 92.681285] ? bpf_prog_run32+0x6b/0x90 [ 92.682601] ? __bpf_prog_run64+0x90/0x90 [ 92.683636] ? lock_downgrade+0x370/0x370 [ 92.684647] ? mark_held_locks+0x44/0x90 [ 92.685652] ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130 [ 92.686752] ? lockdep_hardirqs_on+0x79/0x100 [ 92.688004] ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130 [ 92.688573] ? __cant_migrate+0x2b/0x80 [ 92.689192] ? bpf_test_run+0x2f4/0x510 [ 92.689869] ? bpf_test_timer_continue+0x1c0/0x1c0 [ 92.690856] ? rcu_read_lock_bh_held+0x90/0x90 [ 92.691506] ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x61/0x80 [ 92.692128] ? eth_type_trans+0x128/0x240 [ 92.692737] ? __build_skb+0x46/0x50 [ 92.693252] ? bpf_prog_test_run_skb+0x65e/0xc50 [ 92.693954] ? bpf_prog_test_run_raw_tp+0x2d0/0x2d0 [ 92.694639] ? __fget_light+0xa1/0x100 [ 92.695162] ? bpf_prog_inc+0x23/0x30 [ 92.695685] ? __sys_bpf+0xb40/0x2c80 [ 92.696324] ? bpf_link_get_from_fd+0x90/0x90 [ 92.697150] ? mark_held_locks+0x24/0x90 [ 92.698007] ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x124/0x220 [ 92.699045] ? finish_task_switch+0xe6/0x370 [ 92.700072] ? lockdep_hardirqs_on+0x79/0x100 [ 92.701233] ? finish_task_switch+0x11d/0x370 [ 92.702264] ? __switch_to+0x2c0/0x740 [ 92.703148] ? mark_held_locks+0x24/0x90 [ 92.704155] ? __x64_sys_bpf+0x45/0x50 [ 92.705146] ? do_syscall_64+0x35/0x80 [ 92.706953] ? entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae [...]

Turns out that the program rejection from e411901c0b77 ("bpf: allow for tailcalls in BPF subprograms for x64 JIT") is buggy since env->prog->aux->tail_call_reachable is never true. Commit ebf7d1f508a7 ("bpf, x64: rework pro/epilogue and tailcall handling in JIT") added a tracker into check_max_stack_depth() which propagates the tail_call_reachable condition throughout the subprograms. This info is then assigned to the subprogram's ---truncated---

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-47300"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-125"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-05-21T15:15:17Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nbpf: Fix tail_call_reachable rejection for interpreter when jit failed\n\nDuring testing of f263a81451c1 (\"bpf: Track subprog poke descriptors correctly\nand fix use-after-free\") under various failure conditions, for example, when\njit_subprogs() fails and tries to clean up the program to be run under the\ninterpreter, we ran into the following freeze:\n\n  [...]\n  #127/8 tailcall_bpf2bpf_3:FAIL\n  [...]\n  [   92.041251] BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in ___bpf_prog_run+0x1b9d/0x2e20\n  [   92.042408] Read of size 8 at addr ffff88800da67f68 by task test_progs/682\n  [   92.043707]\n  [   92.044030] CPU: 1 PID: 682 Comm: test_progs Tainted: G   O   5.13.0-53301-ge6c08cb33a30-dirty #87\n  [   92.045542] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.13.0-1ubuntu1 04/01/2014\n  [   92.046785] Call Trace:\n  [   92.047171]  ? __bpf_prog_run_args64+0xc0/0xc0\n  [   92.047773]  ? __bpf_prog_run_args32+0x8b/0xb0\n  [   92.048389]  ? __bpf_prog_run_args64+0xc0/0xc0\n  [   92.049019]  ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130\n  [...] // few hundred [similar] lines more\n  [   92.659025]  ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130\n  [   92.659845]  ? __bpf_prog_run_args64+0xc0/0xc0\n  [   92.660738]  ? __bpf_prog_run_args32+0x8b/0xb0\n  [   92.661528]  ? __bpf_prog_run_args64+0xc0/0xc0\n  [   92.662378]  ? print_usage_bug+0x50/0x50\n  [   92.663221]  ? print_usage_bug+0x50/0x50\n  [   92.664077]  ? bpf_ksym_find+0x9c/0xe0\n  [   92.664887]  ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130\n  [   92.665624]  ? kernel_text_address+0xf5/0x100\n  [   92.666529]  ? __kernel_text_address+0xe/0x30\n  [   92.667725]  ? unwind_get_return_address+0x2f/0x50\n  [   92.668854]  ? ___bpf_prog_run+0x15d4/0x2e20\n  [   92.670185]  ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130\n  [   92.671130]  ? __bpf_prog_run_args64+0xc0/0xc0\n  [   92.672020]  ? __bpf_prog_run_args32+0x8b/0xb0\n  [   92.672860]  ? __bpf_prog_run_args64+0xc0/0xc0\n  [   92.675159]  ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130\n  [   92.677074]  ? lock_is_held_type+0xd5/0x130\n  [   92.678662]  ? ___bpf_prog_run+0x15d4/0x2e20\n  [   92.680046]  ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130\n  [   92.681285]  ? __bpf_prog_run32+0x6b/0x90\n  [   92.682601]  ? __bpf_prog_run64+0x90/0x90\n  [   92.683636]  ? lock_downgrade+0x370/0x370\n  [   92.684647]  ? mark_held_locks+0x44/0x90\n  [   92.685652]  ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130\n  [   92.686752]  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on+0x79/0x100\n  [   92.688004]  ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130\n  [   92.688573]  ? __cant_migrate+0x2b/0x80\n  [   92.689192]  ? bpf_test_run+0x2f4/0x510\n  [   92.689869]  ? bpf_test_timer_continue+0x1c0/0x1c0\n  [   92.690856]  ? rcu_read_lock_bh_held+0x90/0x90\n  [   92.691506]  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x61/0x80\n  [   92.692128]  ? eth_type_trans+0x128/0x240\n  [   92.692737]  ? __build_skb+0x46/0x50\n  [   92.693252]  ? bpf_prog_test_run_skb+0x65e/0xc50\n  [   92.693954]  ? bpf_prog_test_run_raw_tp+0x2d0/0x2d0\n  [   92.694639]  ? __fget_light+0xa1/0x100\n  [   92.695162]  ? bpf_prog_inc+0x23/0x30\n  [   92.695685]  ? __sys_bpf+0xb40/0x2c80\n  [   92.696324]  ? bpf_link_get_from_fd+0x90/0x90\n  [   92.697150]  ? mark_held_locks+0x24/0x90\n  [   92.698007]  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x124/0x220\n  [   92.699045]  ? finish_task_switch+0xe6/0x370\n  [   92.700072]  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on+0x79/0x100\n  [   92.701233]  ? finish_task_switch+0x11d/0x370\n  [   92.702264]  ? __switch_to+0x2c0/0x740\n  [   92.703148]  ? mark_held_locks+0x24/0x90\n  [   92.704155]  ? __x64_sys_bpf+0x45/0x50\n  [   92.705146]  ? do_syscall_64+0x35/0x80\n  [   92.706953]  ? entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae\n  [...]\n\nTurns out that the program rejection from e411901c0b77 (\"bpf: allow for tailcalls\nin BPF subprograms for x64 JIT\") is buggy since env-\u003eprog-\u003eaux-\u003etail_call_reachable\nis never true. Commit ebf7d1f508a7 (\"bpf, x64: rework pro/epilogue and tailcall\nhandling in JIT\") added a tracker into check_max_stack_depth() which propagates\nthe tail_call_reachable condition throughout the subprograms. This info is then\nassigned to the subprogram\u0027s \n---truncated---",
  "id": "GHSA-w5h4-c4xx-3r8p",
  "modified": "2024-12-26T21:30:35Z",
  "published": "2024-05-21T15:31:42Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-47300"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/39f1735c8107ef43a53c4daf82f330d880488d8f"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/5dd0a6b8582ffbfa88351949d50eccd5b6694ade"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/cbb086074dab631ac43f8645cbac1d7b148e05c4"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.

Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Related by attack behaviour

Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.


Loading…