CVE-2017-17862 (published 2017-12-27T17:08Z)

kernel/bpf/verifier.c in the Linux kernel through 4.14.8 ignores unreachable code, even though it would still be processed by JIT compilers. This behavior, also considered an improper branch-pruning logic issue, could possibly be used by local users for denial of service.

Severity: MEDIUM
CVSS v2 base score: 4.9 (AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:C)
CVSS v3 base score: 5.5, MEDIUM (CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H)

Weakness information:
cwe_id: CWE-20
cwe_name: Improper Input Validation
description: The product receives input or data, but it does
        not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the
        properties that are required to process the data safely and
        correctly.
extended_description: 
	   Input validation is a frequently-used technique
	   for checking potentially dangerous inputs in order to
	   ensure that the inputs are safe for processing within the
	   code, or when communicating with other components.  When
	   software does not validate input properly, an attacker is
	   able to craft the input in a form that is not expected by
	   the rest of the application. This will lead to parts of the
	   system receiving unintended input, which may result in
	   altered control flow, arbitrary control of a resource, or
	   arbitrary code execution.
	   Input validation is not the only technique for
	   processing input, however.  Other techniques attempt to
	   transform potentially-dangerous input into something safe, such
	   as filtering (CWE-790) - which attempts to remove dangerous
	   inputs - or encoding/escaping (CWE-116), which attempts to
	   ensure that the input is not misinterpreted when it is included
	   in output to another component. Other techniques exist as well
	   (see CWE-138 for more examples.)
	   Input validation can be applied to:
	   
	     raw data - strings, numbers, parameters, file contents, etc.
	     metadata - information about the raw data, such as headers or size
	   
	   Data can be simple or structured.  Structured data
	   can be composed of many nested layers, composed of
	   combinations of metadata and raw data, with other simple or
	   structured data.
	   Many properties of raw data or metadata may need
	   to be validated upon entry into the code, such
	   as:
	   
	     specified quantities such as size, length, frequency, price, rate, number of operations, time, etc.
	     implied or derived quantities, such as the actual size of a file instead of a specified size
	     indexes, offsets, or positions into more complex data structures
	     symbolic keys or other elements into hash tables, associative arrays, etc.
	     well-formedness, i.e. syntactic correctness - compliance with expected syntax 
	     lexical token correctness - compliance with rules for what is treated as a token
	     specified or derived type - the actual type of the input (or what the input appears to be)
	     consistency - between individual data elements, between raw data and metadata, between references, etc.
	     conformance to domain-specific rules, e.g. business logic 
	     equivalence - ensuring that equivalent inputs are treated the same
	     authenticity, ownership, or other attestations about the input, e.g. a cryptographic signature to prove the source of the data
	   
	   Implied or derived properties of data must often
	   be calculated or inferred by the code itself.  Errors in
	   deriving properties may be considered a contributing factor
	   to improper input validation.
	   
	   Note that "input validation" has very different
	   meanings to different people, or within different
	   classification schemes.  Caution must be used when
	   referencing this CWE entry or mapping to it.  For example,
	   some weaknesses might involve inadvertently giving control
	   to an attacker over an input when they should not be able
	   to provide an input at all, but sometimes this is referred
	   to as input validation.
	   Finally, it is important to emphasize that the
	   distinctions between input validation and output escaping
	   are often blurred, and developers must be careful to
	   understand the difference, including how input validation
	   is not always sufficient to prevent vulnerabilities,
	   especially when less stringent data types must be
	   supported, such as free-form text. Consider a SQL injection
	   scenario in which a person's last name is inserted into a
	   query. The name "O'Reilly" would likely pass the validation
	   step since it is a common last name in the English
	   language. However, this valid name cannot be directly
	   inserted into the database because it contains the "'"
	   apostrophe character, which would need to be escaped or
	   otherwise transformed. In this case, removing the
	   apostrophe might reduce the risk of SQL injection, but it
	   would produce incorrect behavior because the wrong name
	   would be recorded.
       
         

Fix information:
repo_url: https://github.com/torvalds/linux
commit_details: repo_url: https://github.com/torvalds/linux
author: Alexei Starovoitov
author_date: 2017-11-22 16:42:05-08:00
msg: bpf: fix branch pruning logic

when the verifier detects that register contains a runtime constant
and it's compared with another constant it will prune exploration
of the branch that is guaranteed not to be taken at runtime.
This is all correct, but malicious program may be constructed
in such a way that it always has a constant comparison and
the other branch is never taken under any conditions.
In this case such path through the program will not be explored
by the verifier. It won't be taken at run-time either, but since
all instructions are JITed the malicious program may cause JITs
to complain about using reserved fields, etc.
To fix the issue we have to track the instructions explored by
the verifier and sanitize instructions that are dead at run time
with NOPs. We cannot reject such dead code, since llvm generates
it for valid C code, since it doesn't do as much data flow
analysis as the verifier does.

Fixes: 17a5267067f3 ("bpf: verifier (add verifier core)")
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
repository: repo_url: https://github.com/torvalds/linux
repo_name: torvalds/linux
description: Linux kernel source tree
repo_language: C
owner: torvalds
file_changes: filename: bpf_verifier.h
change_type: ModificationType.MODIFY
diff: @@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ struct bpf_insn_aux_data {
 		struct bpf_map *map_ptr;	/* pointer for call insn into lookup_elem */
 	};
 	int ctx_field_size; /* the ctx field size for load insn, maybe 0 */
-	int converted_op_size; /* the valid value width after perceived conversion */
+	bool seen; /* this insn was processed by the verifier */
 };
 
 #define MAX_USED_MAPS 64 /* max number of maps accessed by one eBPF program */

programming_language: C
filename: verifier.c
change_type: ModificationType.MODIFY
diff: @@ -3827,6 +3827,7 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 			return err;
 
 		regs = cur_regs(env);
+		env->insn_aux_data[insn_idx].seen = true;
 		if (class == BPF_ALU || class == BPF_ALU64) {
 			err = check_alu_op(env, insn);
 			if (err)
@@ -4022,6 +4023,7 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 					return err;
 
 				insn_idx++;
+				env->insn_aux_data[insn_idx].seen = true;
 			} else {
 				verbose(env, "invalid BPF_LD mode\n");
 				return -EINVAL;
@@ -4204,6 +4206,7 @@ static int adjust_insn_aux_data(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 prog_len,
 				u32 off, u32 cnt)
 {
 	struct bpf_insn_aux_data *new_data, *old_data = env->insn_aux_data;
+	int i;
 
 	if (cnt == 1)
 		return 0;
@@ -4213,6 +4216,8 @@ static int adjust_insn_aux_data(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 prog_len,
 	memcpy(new_data, old_data, sizeof(struct bpf_insn_aux_data) * off);
 	memcpy(new_data + off + cnt - 1, old_data + off,
 	       sizeof(struct bpf_insn_aux_data) * (prog_len - off - cnt + 1));
+	for (i = off; i < off + cnt - 1; i++)
+		new_data[i].seen = true;
 	env->insn_aux_data = new_data;
 	vfree(old_data);
 	return 0;
@@ -4231,6 +4236,25 @@ static struct bpf_prog *bpf_patch_insn_data(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 of
 	return new_prog;
 }
 
+/* The verifier does more data flow analysis than llvm and will not explore
+ * branches that are dead at run time. Malicious programs can have dead code
+ * too. Therefore replace all dead at-run-time code with nops.
+ */
+static void sanitize_dead_code(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
+{
+	struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux_data = env->insn_aux_data;
+	struct bpf_insn nop = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0);
+	struct bpf_insn *insn = env->prog->insnsi;
+	const int insn_cnt = env->prog->len;
+	int i;
+
+	for (i = 0; i < insn_cnt; i++) {
+		if (aux_data[i].seen)
+			continue;
+		memcpy(insn + i, &nop, sizeof(nop));
+	}
+}
+
 /* convert load instructions that access fields of 'struct __sk_buff'
  * into sequence of instructions that access fields of 'struct sk_buff'
  */
@@ -4557,6 +4581,9 @@ int bpf_check(struct bpf_prog **prog, union bpf_attr *attr)
 	while (!pop_stack(env, NULL, NULL));
 	free_states(env);
 
+	if (ret == 0)
+		sanitize_dead_code(env);
+
 	if (ret == 0)
 		/* program is valid, convert *(u32*)(ctx + off) accesses */
 		ret = convert_ctx_accesses(env);

programming_language: C