CVE-2017-17853: Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer (CWE-119)
value: kernel/bpf/verifier.c in the Linux kernel through 4.14.8 allows local users to cause a denial of service (memory corruption) or possibly have unspecified other impact by leveraging incorrect BPF_RSH signed bounds calculations.
CWE description: The product performs operations on a memory buffer, but it reads from or writes to a memory location outside the buffer's intended boundary. This may result in read or write operations on unexpected memory locations that could be linked to other variables, data structures, or internal program data.
CVSS v3 base score: 7.8
Published: 2017-12-27T17:08Z
Repository: https://github.com/torvalds/linux
Language: C
Files changed: kernel/bpf/verifier.c
Commit date: 2017-12-21 02:15:41 +0100
Commit message: bpf/verifier: fix bounds calculation on BPF_RSH

Incorrect signed bounds were being computed.
If the old upper signed bound was positive and the old lower signed bound was
negative, this could cause the new upper signed bound to be too low,
leading to security issues.

Fixes: b03c9f9fdc37 ("bpf/verifier: track signed and unsigned min/max values")
Reported-by: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
[jannh@google.com: changed description to reflect bug impact]
Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

Diff: diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index e39b01317b6f89..625e358ca765e1 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -2188,24 +2188,26 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 			 * shifts by a negative number.
 			 */
 			mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, insn->dst_reg);
 			break;
 		}
-		/* BPF_RSH is an unsigned shift, so make the appropriate casts */
-		if (dst_reg->smin_value < 0) {
-			if (umin_val) {
-				/* Sign bit will be cleared */
-				dst_reg->smin_value = 0;
-			} else {
-				/* Lost sign bit information */
-				dst_reg->smin_value = S64_MIN;
-				dst_reg->smax_value = S64_MAX;
-			}
-		} else {
-			dst_reg->smin_value =
-				(u64)(dst_reg->smin_value) >> umax_val;
-		}
+		/* BPF_RSH is an unsigned shift.  If the value in dst_reg might
+		 * be negative, then either:
+		 * 1) src_reg might be zero, so the sign bit of the result is
+		 *    unknown, so we lose our signed bounds
+		 * 2) it's known negative, thus the unsigned bounds capture the
+		 *    signed bounds
+		 * 3) the signed bounds cross zero, so they tell us nothing
+		 *    about the result
+		 * If the value in dst_reg is known nonnegative, then again the
+		 * unsigned bounts capture the signed bounds.
+		 * Thus, in all cases it suffices to blow away our signed bounds
+		 * and rely on inferring new ones from the unsigned bounds and
+		 * var_off of the result.
+		 */
+		dst_reg->smin_value = S64_MIN;
+		dst_reg->smax_value = S64_MAX;
 		if (src_known)
 			dst_reg->var_off = tnum_rshift(dst_reg->var_off,
 						       umin_val);
 		else
 			dst_reg->var_off = tnum_rshift(tnum_unknown, umin_val);

Vulnerable code: 		/* BPF_RSH is an unsigned shift, so make the appropriate casts */
		if (dst_reg->smin_value < 0) {
			if (umin_val) {
				/* Sign bit will be cleared */
				dst_reg->smin_value = 0;
			} else {
				/* Lost sign bit information */
				dst_reg->smin_value = S64_MIN;
				dst_reg->smax_value = S64_MAX;
			}
		} else {
			dst_reg->smin_value =
				(u64)(dst_reg->smin_value) >> umax_val;
		}
Fixed code: 		/* BPF_RSH is an unsigned shift.  If the value in dst_reg might
		 * be negative, then either:
		 * 1) src_reg might be zero, so the sign bit of the result is
		 *    unknown, so we lose our signed bounds
		 * 2) it's known negative, thus the unsigned bounds capture the
		 *    signed bounds
		 * 3) the signed bounds cross zero, so they tell us nothing
		 *    about the result
		 * If the value in dst_reg is known nonnegative, then again the
		 * unsigned bounts capture the signed bounds.
		 * Thus, in all cases it suffices to blow away our signed bounds
		 * and rely on inferring new ones from the unsigned bounds and
		 * var_off of the result.
		 */
		dst_reg->smin_value = S64_MIN;
		dst_reg->smax_value = S64_MAX;