CVE-2017-9150 (published 2017-05-22T22:29Z)

The do_check function in kernel/bpf/verifier.c in the Linux kernel before 4.11.1 does not make the allow_ptr_leaks value available for restricting the output of the print_bpf_insn function, which allows local users to obtain sensitive address information via crafted bpf system calls.

Severity: LOW
CVSS v2 base score: 2.1 (AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N)
CVSS v3 base score: 5.5, MEDIUM (CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N)

Weakness information:
cwe_id: CWE-200
cwe_name: Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
description: The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.
extended_description: 
	   There are many different kinds of mistakes that introduce information exposures. The severity of the error can range widely, depending on the context in which the product operates, the type of sensitive information that is revealed, and the benefits it may provide to an attacker.  Some kinds of sensitive information include:
       
         private, personal information, such as personal messages, financial data, health records, geographic location, or contact details
         system status and environment, such as the operating system and installed packages
		 business secrets and intellectual property
		 network status and configuration
		 the product's own code or internal state
         metadata, e.g. logging of connections or message headers
		 indirect information, such as a discrepancy between two internal operations that can be observed by an outsider
       
	    Information might be sensitive to different parties, each of which may have their own expectations for whether the information should be protected.  These parties include:
               
                  the product's own users
                  people or organizations whose information is created or used by the product, even if they are not direct product users
		  the product's administrators, including the admins of the system(s) and/or networks on which the product operates
                  the developer
               
	    Information exposures can occur in different ways:
               
                  the code explicitly inserts sensitive information into resources or messages that are intentionally made accessible to unauthorized actors, but should not contain the information - i.e., the information should have been "scrubbed" or "sanitized"
                  a different weakness or mistake indirectly inserts the sensitive information into resources, such as a web script error revealing the full system path of the program.
                  the code manages resources that intentionally contain sensitive information, but the resources are unintentionally made accessible to unauthorized actors. In this case, the information exposure is resultant - i.e., a different weakness enabled the access to the information in the first place.
               
	    It is common practice to describe any loss of confidentiality as an "information exposure," but this can lead to overuse of CWE-200 in CWE mapping. From the CWE perspective, loss of confidentiality is a technical impact that can arise from dozens of different weaknesses, such as insecure file permissions or out-of-bounds read.  CWE-200 and its lower-level descendants are intended to cover the mistakes that occur in behaviors that explicitly manage, store, transfer, or cleanse sensitive information.
         
         

Fix information:
repo_url: https://github.com/torvalds/linux
commit_details: repo_url: https://github.com/torvalds/linux
author: Daniel Borkmann
author_date: 2017-05-08 00:04:09+02:00
msg: bpf: don't let ldimm64 leak map addresses on unprivileged

The patch fixes two things at once:

1) It checks the env->allow_ptr_leaks and only prints the map address to
   the log if we have the privileges to do so, otherwise it just dumps 0
   as we would when kptr_restrict is enabled on %pK. Given the latter is
   off by default and not every distro sets it, I don't want to rely on
   this, hence the 0 by default for unprivileged.

2) Printing of ldimm64 in the verifier log is currently broken in that
   we don't print the full immediate, but only the 32 bit part of the
   first insn part for ldimm64. Thus, fix this up as well; it's okay to
   access, since we verified all ldimm64 earlier already (including just
   constants) through replace_map_fd_with_map_ptr().

Fixes: 1be7f75d1668 ("bpf: enable non-root eBPF programs")
Fixes: cbd357008604 ("bpf: verifier (add ability to receive verification log)")
Reported-by: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.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: verifier.c
change_type: ModificationType.MODIFY
diff: @@ -298,7 +298,8 @@ static const char *const bpf_jmp_string[16] = {
 	[BPF_EXIT >> 4] = "exit",
 };
 
-static void print_bpf_insn(struct bpf_insn *insn)
+static void print_bpf_insn(const struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
+			   const struct bpf_insn *insn)
 {
 	u8 class = BPF_CLASS(insn->code);
 
@@ -362,9 +363,19 @@ static void print_bpf_insn(struct bpf_insn *insn)
 				insn->code,
 				bpf_ldst_string[BPF_SIZE(insn->code) >> 3],
 				insn->src_reg, insn->imm);
-		} else if (BPF_MODE(insn->code) == BPF_IMM) {
-			verbose("(%02x) r%d = 0x%x\n",
-				insn->code, insn->dst_reg, insn->imm);
+		} else if (BPF_MODE(insn->code) == BPF_IMM &&
+			   BPF_SIZE(insn->code) == BPF_DW) {
+			/* At this point, we already made sure that the second
+			 * part of the ldimm64 insn is accessible.
+			 */
+			u64 imm = ((u64)(insn + 1)->imm << 32) | (u32)insn->imm;
+			bool map_ptr = insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_MAP_FD;
+
+			if (map_ptr && !env->allow_ptr_leaks)
+				imm = 0;
+
+			verbose("(%02x) r%d = 0x%llx\n", insn->code,
+				insn->dst_reg, (unsigned long long)imm);
 		} else {
 			verbose("BUG_ld_%02x\n", insn->code);
 			return;
@@ -2853,7 +2864,7 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 
 		if (log_level) {
 			verbose("%d: ", insn_idx);
-			print_bpf_insn(insn);
+			print_bpf_insn(env, insn);
 		}
 
 		err = ext_analyzer_insn_hook(env, insn_idx, prev_insn_idx);

programming_language: C