Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 13:38:40 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	"Gustavo A . R . Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
	Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
	KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
	Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
	Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
	Haowen Bai <baihaowen@...zu.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
	Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
	Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@...il.com>,
	Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>, Kui-Feng Lee <kuifeng@...a.com>,
	Anton Protopopov <aspsk@...valent.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] bpf: Replace bpf_lpm_trie_key 0-length array with
 flexible array

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 05:39:55PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 2/20/24 7:54 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > Replace deprecated 0-length array in struct bpf_lpm_trie_key with
> > flexible array. Found with GCC 13:
> > 
> > ../kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c:207:51: warning: array subscript i is outside array bounds of 'const __u8[0]' {aka 'const unsigned char[]'} [-Warray-bounds=]
> >    207 |                                        *(__be16 *)&key->data[i]);
> >        |                                                   ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > ../include/uapi/linux/swab.h:102:54: note: in definition of macro '__swab16'
> >    102 | #define __swab16(x) (__u16)__builtin_bswap16((__u16)(x))
> >        |                                                      ^
> > ../include/linux/byteorder/generic.h:97:21: note: in expansion of macro '__be16_to_cpu'
> >     97 | #define be16_to_cpu __be16_to_cpu
> >        |                     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > ../kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c:206:28: note: in expansion of macro 'be16_to_cpu'
> >    206 |                 u16 diff = be16_to_cpu(*(__be16 *)&node->data[i]
> > ^
> >        |                            ^~~~~~~~~~~
> > In file included from ../include/linux/bpf.h:7:
> > ../include/uapi/linux/bpf.h:82:17: note: while referencing 'data'
> >     82 |         __u8    data[0];        /* Arbitrary size */
> >        |                 ^~~~
> > 
> > And found at run-time under CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE:
> > 
> >    UBSAN: array-index-out-of-bounds in kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c:218:49
> >    index 0 is out of range for type '__u8 [*]'
> > 
> > Changing struct bpf_lpm_trie_key is difficult since has been used by
> > userspace. For example, in Cilium:
> > 
> > 	struct egress_gw_policy_key {
> > 	        struct bpf_lpm_trie_key lpm_key;
> > 	        __u32 saddr;
> > 	        __u32 daddr;
> > 	};
> > 
> > While direct references to the "data" member haven't been found, there
> > are static initializers what include the final member. For example,
> > the "{}" here:
> > 
> >          struct egress_gw_policy_key in_key = {
> >                  .lpm_key = { 32 + 24, {} },
> >                  .saddr   = CLIENT_IP,
> >                  .daddr   = EXTERNAL_SVC_IP & 0Xffffff,
> >          };
> > 
> > To avoid the build time and run time warnings seen with a 0-sized
> > trailing array for struct bpf_lpm_trie_key, introduce a new struct
> > that correctly uses a flexible array for the trailing bytes,
> > struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8. As part of this, include the "header"
> > portion (which is just the "prefixlen" member), so it can be used
> > by anything building a bpf_lpr_trie_key that has trailing members that
> > aren't a u8 flexible array (like the self-test[1]), which is named
> > struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_hdr.
> > 
> > Adjust the kernel code to use struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 through-out,
> > and for the selftest to use struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_hdr. Add a comment
> > to the UAPI header directing folks to the two new options.
> > 
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/202206281009.4332AA33@keescook/ [1]
> > Reported-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
> > Closes: https://paste.debian.net/hidden/ca500597/
> > Acked-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@...nel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> [...]
> 
> The build in BPF CI is still broken, did you try to build selftests?

I did! I didn't have this error. :(

>   https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/7978647641

Thanks for the pointer. It took a bit of digging, but I found this:
https://github.com/libbpf/ci/blob/main/build-selftests/build_selftests.sh
which is much more involved than just "make -C tools/testing/selftests/bpf"

> 
>   [...]
>     GEN-SKEL [test_progs] linked_funcs.skel.h
>     LINK-BPF [test_progs] test_usdt.bpf.o
>     GEN-SKEL [test_progs-no_alu32] profiler1.skel.h
>     GEN-SKEL [test_progs] test_usdt.skel.h
>   In file included from /tmp/work/bpf/bpf/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h:11,
>                    from test_cpp.cpp:4:
>   /tmp/work/bpf/bpf/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h:92:17: error: ‘struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8::<unnamed union>::bpf_lpm_trie_key_hdr’ invalid; an anonymous union may only have public non-static data members [-fpermissive]
>      92 |  __struct_group(bpf_lpm_trie_key_hdr, hdr, /* no attrs */,
>         |                 ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>   /tmp/work/bpf/bpf/tools/include/uapi/linux/stddef.h:29:10: note: in definition of macro ‘__struct_group’
>      29 |   struct TAG { MEMBERS } ATTRS NAME; \
>         |          ^~~

I'll see if I can figure out where this is coming from. This sounds like
something is being built with an unexpectedly strict option. (The above
report seems weird -- this isn't coming from -fpermissive, and is
actually an _error_ not a warning, which is the opposite of what
-fpermissive is supposed to do.) Also the mention of "public" is scary
here... that implies a C++ compiler is involved? Maybe that's why my
builds didn't catch this?

>   make: *** [Makefile:703: /tmp/work/bpf/bpf/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_cpp] Error 1

Ah yes, cpp. Fun. I will try to reproduce this failure.

-- 
Kees Cook

Powered by blists - more mailing lists