Описание
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: backtracking shouldn't clear outer frame R1-R5 for callbacks When processing calls to bpf_loop() verifier marks R1 (and R4) as precise. R1 tracks loop iterations number and because of the 'callback_depth < R1' mechanics in check_helper_call() must be marked precise. However, precision propagation for R1 was broken, when bpf_loop() call was verified on a second iteration. Consider the following verification trace:
- main: bpf_loop(nr_loops, callback ...)
- callback: BPF_EXIT
- main: bpf_loop(nr_loops, callback ...)
- ...
While the first visit of the call to bpf_loop() propagated R1
precision as expected, the second call to mark_chain_precision() in
the check_helper_call() set R1, but it was immediately reset when
backtrack_insn() processed preceding BPF_EXIT in the loop deleted in
this patch.
Because of that, the second visit of the call to bpf_loop() injected
checkpoint with R1 not marked as precise. Which could trick the
verifier into accepting unsafe programs. See the next patch for an
example of such program.
Commit is structured in a way to minimize conflicts when
'bpf' would be eventually merged with 'bpf-next'.
A flaw was found in the Linux kernel's BPF (Berkeley Packet Filter) verifier. A local user with permissions to load BPF programs could exploit this vulnerability by submitting a specially crafted program containing callbacks. Due to improper register precision tracking during instruction analysis, the verifier fails to recognize unsafe operations, potentially allowing the attacker to escalate privileges or cause a denial of service (DoS).
Отчет
This vulnerability is rated as Moderate severity because successful exploitation requires local authenticated access with privileges to load extended Berkeley Packet Filter (eBPF) programs, limiting the attack surface to local privilege escalation or system crashes. Furthermore, supported Red Hat Enterprise Linux releases are not affected as they do not include the vulnerable upstream backtracking commits. Standard Red Hat environments also restrict unprivileged eBPF program loading by default, significantly reducing exposure.
Затронутые пакеты
| Платформа | Пакет | Состояние | Рекомендация | Релиз |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 | kernel | Not affected | ||
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 | kernel | Not affected | ||
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | kernel | Not affected | ||
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | kernel-rt | Not affected | ||
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | kernel | Not affected | ||
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | kernel-rt | Not affected | ||
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | kernel | Not affected | ||
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | kernel-rt | Not affected | ||
| Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4 | openshift/ose-rhel-coreos-8 | Not affected | ||
| Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4 | openshift/ose-rhel-coreos-9 | Not affected |
Показывать по
Дополнительная информация
Статус:
5.5 Medium
CVSS3
Связанные уязвимости
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: backtracking shouldn't clear outer frame R1-R5 for callbacks When processing calls to bpf_loop() verifier marks R1 (and R4) as precise. R1 tracks loop iterations number and because of the 'callback_depth < R1' mechanics in check_helper_call() must be marked precise. However, precision propagation for R1 was broken, when bpf_loop() call was verified on a second iteration. Consider the following verification trace: - main: bpf_loop(nr_loops, callback ...) - callback: BPF_EXIT - main: bpf_loop(nr_loops, callback ...) - ... While the first visit of the call to bpf_loop() propagated R1 precision as expected, the second call to mark_chain_precision() in the check_helper_call() set R1, but it was immediately reset when backtrack_insn() processed preceding BPF_EXIT in the loop deleted in this patch. Because of that, the second visit of the call to bpf_loop() injected checkpoint with R1 not marked as precise. Which coul...
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: backtracking shouldn't clear outer frame R1-R5 for callbacks When processing calls to bpf_loop() verifier marks R1 (and R4) as precise. R1 tracks loop iterations number and because of the 'callback_depth < R1' mechanics in check_helper_call() must be marked precise. However, precision propagation for R1 was broken, when bpf_loop() call was verified on a second iteration. Consider the following verification trace: - main: bpf_loop(nr_loops, callback ...) - callback: BPF_EXIT - main: bpf_loop(nr_loops, callback ...) - ... While the first visit of the call to bpf_loop() propagated R1 precision as expected, the second call to mark_chain_precision() in the check_helper_call() set R1, but it was immediately reset when backtrack_insn() processed preceding BPF_EXIT in the loop deleted in this patch. Because of that, the second visit of the call to bpf_loop() injected checkpoint with R1 not marked as precise. Which co
bpf: backtracking shouldn't clear outer frame R1-R5 for callbacks
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: b ...
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: backtracking shouldn't clear outer frame R1-R5 for callbacks When processing calls to bpf_loop() verifier marks R1 (and R4) as precise. R1 tracks loop iterations number and because of the 'callback_depth < R1' mechanics in check_helper_call() must be marked precise. However, precision propagation for R1 was broken, when bpf_loop() call was verified on a second iteration. Consider the following verification trace: - main: bpf_loop(nr_loops, callback ...) - callback: BPF_EXIT - main: bpf_loop(nr_loops, callback ...) - ... While the first visit of the call to bpf_loop() propagated R1 precision as expected, the second call to mark_chain_precision() in the check_helper_call() set R1, but it was immediately reset when backtrack_insn() processed preceding BPF_EXIT in the loop deleted in this patch. Because of that, the second visit of the call to bpf_loop() injected checkpoint with R1 not marked as precise. Which...
5.5 Medium
CVSS3