Re: [PATCH net] bpf: fix allocation warnings in bpf maps and integer overflow

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 11/30/2015 02:52 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 11/30/2015 01:59 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> [...]
> > For large map->value_size the user space can trigger memory allocation warnings like:
> [...]
>
> > To avoid never succeeding kmalloc with order >= MAX_ORDER check that
> > elem->value_size and computed elem_size are within limits for both hash and
> > array type maps.
> [...]
>
> > Large value_size can cause integer overflows in elem_size and map.pages
> > formulas, so check for that as well.
> [...]
>
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c b/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c
> > index 3f4c99e06c6b..b1e53b79c586 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c
> > @@ -28,11 +28,17 @@ static struct bpf_map *array_map_alloc(union bpf_attr *attr)
> >           attr->value_size == 0)
> >           return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> >
> > +    if (attr->value_size >= 1 << (KMALLOC_SHIFT_MAX - 1))
> > +        /* if value_size is bigger, the user space won't be able to
> > +         * access the elements.
> > +         */
> > +        return ERR_PTR(-E2BIG);
> > +
>
> Bit confused, given that in array map, we try kzalloc() with __GFP_NOWARN already
> and if that fails, we fall back to vzalloc(), it shouldn't trigger memory allocation
> warnings here ...
>
> Then, integer overflow in elem_size with round_up(attr->value_size, 8) could only
> result in 0, which is already tested below.
>
> >       elem_size = round_up(attr->value_size, 8);
> >
> >       /* check round_up into zero and u32 overflow */
> >       if (elem_size == 0 ||
> > -        attr->max_entries > (U32_MAX - sizeof(*array)) / elem_size)
> > +        attr->max_entries > (U32_MAX - PAGE_SIZE - sizeof(*array)) / elem_size)
> >           return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>
> ... and this change seems to be needed for the integer overflow in map.pages?
>
> So if the first check above intends to check for some size overflow (?), how is it
> then related to KMALLOC_SHIFT_MAX?

Ok, I see. The check and comment is related to the fact that when we do bpf(2)
syscall to lookup an element:

We call map_lookup_elem(), which does kmalloc() on the value_size.

So an individual entry lookup could fail with kmalloc() there, unrelated to an
individual map implementation.

Hmm, seems this patch fixes many things at once, maybe makes sense to split it?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/