bpf: fix incorrect sign extension in check_alu_op()

thejh · borkmann · commit 95a762e2c8c9 · 2017-12-21T02:15:41.000+01:00
Distinguish between BPF_ALU64|BPF_MOV|BPF_K (load 32-bit immediate, sign-extended to 64-bit) and BPF_ALU|BPF_MOV|BPF_K (load 32-bit immediate, zero-padded to 64-bit); only perform sign extension in the first case. Starting with v4.14, this is exploitable by unprivileged users as long as the unprivileged_bpf_disabled sysctl isn't set. Debian assigned CVE-2017-16995 for this issue. v3: - add CVE number (Ben Hutchings) Fixes: 4846113 ("bpf: allow access into map value arrays") Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> Acked-by: Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -2408,7 +2408,13 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn)
 			 * remember the value we stored into this reg
 			 */
 			regs[insn->dst_reg].type = SCALAR_VALUE;
-			__mark_reg_known(regs + insn->dst_reg, insn->imm);
+			if (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64) {
+				__mark_reg_known(regs + insn->dst_reg,
+						 insn->imm);
+			} else {
+				__mark_reg_known(regs + insn->dst_reg,
+						 (u32)insn->imm);
+			}
 		}
 
 	} else if (opcode > BPF_END) {
