Re: [PATCH 12/23] bpf: handle the compat string in bpf_trace_copy_string better
From: Yonghong Song <hidden>
Date: 2020-05-28 02:27:20
Also in:
bpf, linux-mm, linux-um, lkml
On 5/27/20 7:04 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
On Thu, 21 May 2020 17:22:50 +0200 Christoph Hellwig [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
User the proper helper for kernel or userspace addresses based on TASK_SIZE instead of the dangerous strncpy_from_unsafe function. ...--- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c@@ -331,8 +331,11 @@ static void bpf_trace_copy_string(char *buf, void *unsafe_ptr, char fmt_ptype, switch (fmt_ptype) { case 's': #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_NON_OVERLAPPING_ADDRESS_SPACE - strncpy_from_unsafe(buf, unsafe_ptr, bufsz); - break; + if ((unsigned long)unsafe_ptr < TASK_SIZE) { + strncpy_from_user_nofault(buf, user_ptr, bufsz); + break; + } + fallthrough; #endif case 'k': strncpy_from_kernel_nofault(buf, unsafe_ptr, bufsz);Another user of strncpy_from_unsafe() has popped up in linux-next's bpf. I did the below, but didn't try very hard - it's probably wrong if CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_NON_OVERLAPPING_ADDRESS_SPACE=n? Anyway, please take a look at all the bpf_trace.c changes in linux-next. From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Subject: bpf:bpf_seq_printf(): handle potentially unsafe format string better User the proper helper for kernel or userspace addresses based on TASK_SIZE instead of the dangerous strncpy_from_unsafe function. Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> Cc: Ingo Molnar <redacted> Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <redacted> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> --- kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 13 ++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)--- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c~xxx +++ a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c@@ -588,15 +588,22 @@ BPF_CALL_5(bpf_seq_printf, struct seq_fi } if (fmt[i] == 's') { + void *unsafe_ptr; + /* try our best to copy */ if (memcpy_cnt >= MAX_SEQ_PRINTF_MAX_MEMCPY) { err = -E2BIG; goto out; } - err = strncpy_from_unsafe(bufs->buf[memcpy_cnt], - (void *) (long) args[fmt_cnt], - MAX_SEQ_PRINTF_STR_LEN); + unsafe_ptr = (void *)(long)args[fmt_cnt]; + if ((unsigned long)unsafe_ptr < TASK_SIZE) { + err = strncpy_from_user_nofault( + bufs->buf[memcpy_cnt], unsafe_ptr, + MAX_SEQ_PRINTF_STR_LEN); + } else { + err = -EFAULT; + }
This probably not right. The pointer stored at args[fmt_cnt] is a kernel pointer, but it could be an invalid address and we do not want to fault. Not sure whether it exists or not, we should use strncpy_from_kernel_nofault()?
if (err < 0) bufs->buf[memcpy_cnt][0] = '\0'; params[fmt_cnt] = (u64)(long)bufs->buf[memcpy_cnt]; _