Bug 2265657 (CVE-2024-26589)

Summary: CVE-2024-26589 kernel: bpf: Reject variable offset alu on PTR_TO_FLOW_KEYS
Product: [Other] Security Response Reporter: Patrick Del Bello <pdelbell>
Component: vulnerabilityAssignee: Product Security <prodsec-ir-bot>
Status: NEW --- QA Contact:
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: unspecifiedCC: acaringi, allarkin, aquini, bhu, chwhite, cye, cyin, dbohanno, debarbos, dfreiber, drow, dvlasenk, esandeen, ezulian, hkrzesin, jarod, jburrell, jdenham, jfaracco, jforbes, jlelli, joe.lawrence, jshortt, jstancek, jwyatt, kcarcia, ldoskova, lgoncalv, lzampier, mleitner, mmilgram, mstowell, nmurray, ptalbert, rparrazo, rrobaina, rvrbovsk, rysulliv, scweaver, sukulkar, tglozar, tyberry, vinair, vkumar, wcosta, williams, wmealing, ycote, ykopkova, zhijwang
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: Security
Target Release: ---Flags: allarkin: needinfo? (vinair)
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On: 2265666    
Bug Blocks: 2265643    

Description Patrick Del Bello 2024-02-23 13:58:04 UTC
bpf: Reject variable offset alu on PTR_TO_FLOW_KEYS

For PTR_TO_FLOW_KEYS, check_flow_keys_access() only uses fixed off
for validation. However, variable offset ptr alu is not prohibited
for this ptr kind. So the variable offset is not checked.

The following prog is accepted:

  func#0 @0
  0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
  0: (bf) r6 = r1                       ; R1=ctx() R6_w=ctx()
  1: (79) r7 = *(u64 *)(r6 +144)        ; R6_w=ctx() R7_w=flow_keys()
  2: (b7) r8 = 1024                     ; R8_w=1024
  3: (37) r8 /= 1                       ; R8_w=scalar()
  4: (57) r8 &= 1024                    ; R8_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,
  smax=umax=smax32=umax32=1024,var_off=(0x0; 0x400))
  5: (0f) r7 += r8
  mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 5 first_idx 0 subseq_idx -1
  mark_precise: frame0: regs=r8 stack= before 4: (57) r8 &= 1024
  mark_precise: frame0: regs=r8 stack= before 3: (37) r8 /= 1
  mark_precise: frame0: regs=r8 stack= before 2: (b7) r8 = 1024
  6: R7_w=flow_keys(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=1024,var_off
  =(0x0; 0x400)) R8_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=1024,
  var_off=(0x0; 0x400))
  6: (79) r0 = *(u64 *)(r7 +0)          ; R0_w=scalar()
  7: (95) exit

This prog loads flow_keys to r7, and adds the variable offset r8
to r7, and finally causes out-of-bounds access:

  BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffffc90014c80038
  [...]
  Call Trace:
   <TASK>
   bpf_dispatcher_nop_func include/linux/bpf.h:1231 [inline]
   __bpf_prog_run include/linux/filter.h:651 [inline]
   bpf_prog_run include/linux/filter.h:658 [inline]
   bpf_prog_run_pin_on_cpu include/linux/filter.h:675 [inline]
   bpf_flow_dissect+0x15f/0x350 net/core/flow_dissector.c:991
   bpf_prog_test_run_flow_dissector+0x39d/0x620 net/bpf/test_run.c:1359
   bpf_prog_test_run kernel/bpf/syscall.c:4107 [inline]
   __sys_bpf+0xf8f/0x4560 kernel/bpf/syscall.c:5475
   __do_sys_bpf kernel/bpf/syscall.c:5561 [inline]
   __se_sys_bpf kernel/bpf/syscall.c:5559 [inline]
   __x64_sys_bpf+0x73/0xb0 kernel/bpf/syscall.c:5559
   do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline]
   do_syscall_64+0x3f/0x110 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83
   entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0x6b

Fix this by rejecting ptr alu with variable offset on flow_keys.
Applying the patch rejects the program with "R7 pointer arithmetic
on flow_keys prohibited".

Comment 1 Patrick Del Bello 2024-02-23 14:38:40 UTC
Created kernel tracking bugs for this issue:

Affects: fedora-all [bug 2265666]

Comment 3 Justin M. Forbes 2024-02-27 00:31:35 UTC
	Issue introduced in 4.20 with commit d58e468b1112 and fixed in 5.15.148 with commit 29ffa63f21bc
	Issue introduced in 4.20 with commit d58e468b1112 and fixed in 6.1.75 with commit 4108b86e324d
	Issue introduced in 4.20 with commit d58e468b1112 and fixed in 6.6.14 with commit e8d3872b617c
	Issue introduced in 4.20 with commit d58e468b1112 and fixed in 6.7.2 with commit 1b500d5d6cec
	Issue introduced in 4.20 with commit d58e468b1112 and fixed in 6.8-rc1 with commit 22c7fa171a02

Comment 4 Justin M. Forbes 2024-02-27 00:31:51 UTC
This was fixed for Fedora with the 6.6.14 stable kernel updates.

Comment 8 Alex 2024-06-09 16:50:25 UTC
The result of automatic check (that is developed by Alexander Larkin) for this CVE-2024-26589 is: CHECK	Maybe valid. Check manually. with impact LOW (that is an approximation based on flags WRITE OOB BPF  ; these flags parsed automatically based on patch data). Such automatic check happens only for Low/Moderates (and only when not from reporter, but parsing already existing CVE). Highs always checked manually (I check it myself and then we check it again in Remediation team). In rare cases some of the Moderates could be increased to High later.

Comment 11 errata-xmlrpc 2024-11-12 09:18:32 UTC
This issue has been addressed in the following products:

  Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9

Via RHSA-2024:9315 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:9315