lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH net] bpf: fix allocation warnings in bpf maps and integer overflow
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> 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?


kamlloc produces a WARNING if you try to allocate more than it ever
possibly can (KMALLOC_SHIFT_MAX).


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-30 15:21    [W:0.074 / U:0.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site