Out-of-bounds Read Affecting bpftool package, versions *
Threat Intelligence
The probability is the direct output of the EPSS model, and conveys an overall sense of the threat of exploitation in the wild. The percentile measures the EPSS probability relative to all known EPSS scores. Note: This data is updated daily, relying on the latest available EPSS model version. Check out the EPSS documentation for more details.
Do your applications use this vulnerable package?
In a few clicks we can analyze your entire application and see what components are vulnerable in your application, and suggest you quick fixes.
Test your applications- Snyk IDSNYK-CENTOS7-BPFTOOL-7240059
- published10 Jun 2024
- disclosed21 May 2024
Introduced: 21 May 2024
CVE-2021-47300 (opens in a new tab)How to fix?
There is no fixed version for Centos:7 bpftool.
NVD Description
Note: Versions mentioned in the description apply only to the upstream bpftool package and not the bpftool package as distributed by Centos.
See How to fix? for Centos:7 relevant fixed versions and status.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Fix tail_call_reachable rejection for interpreter when jit failed
During testing of f263a81451c1 ("bpf: Track subprog poke descriptors correctly and fix use-after-free") under various failure conditions, for example, when jit_subprogs() fails and tries to clean up the program to be run under the interpreter, we ran into the following freeze:
[...] #127/8 tailcall_bpf2bpf_3:FAIL [...] [ 92.041251] BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in ___bpf_prog_run+0x1b9d/0x2e20 [ 92.042408] Read of size 8 at addr ffff88800da67f68 by task test_progs/682 [ 92.043707] [ 92.044030] CPU: 1 PID: 682 Comm: test_progs Tainted: G O 5.13.0-53301-ge6c08cb33a30-dirty #87 [ 92.045542] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.13.0-1ubuntu1 04/01/2014 [ 92.046785] Call Trace: [ 92.047171] ? __bpf_prog_run_args64+0xc0/0xc0 [ 92.047773] ? __bpf_prog_run_args32+0x8b/0xb0 [ 92.048389] ? __bpf_prog_run_args64+0xc0/0xc0 [ 92.049019] ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130 [...] // few hundred [similar] lines more [ 92.659025] ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130 [ 92.659845] ? __bpf_prog_run_args64+0xc0/0xc0 [ 92.660738] ? __bpf_prog_run_args32+0x8b/0xb0 [ 92.661528] ? __bpf_prog_run_args64+0xc0/0xc0 [ 92.662378] ? print_usage_bug+0x50/0x50 [ 92.663221] ? print_usage_bug+0x50/0x50 [ 92.664077] ? bpf_ksym_find+0x9c/0xe0 [ 92.664887] ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130 [ 92.665624] ? kernel_text_address+0xf5/0x100 [ 92.666529] ? __kernel_text_address+0xe/0x30 [ 92.667725] ? unwind_get_return_address+0x2f/0x50 [ 92.668854] ? ___bpf_prog_run+0x15d4/0x2e20 [ 92.670185] ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130 [ 92.671130] ? __bpf_prog_run_args64+0xc0/0xc0 [ 92.672020] ? __bpf_prog_run_args32+0x8b/0xb0 [ 92.672860] ? __bpf_prog_run_args64+0xc0/0xc0 [ 92.675159] ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130 [ 92.677074] ? lock_is_held_type+0xd5/0x130 [ 92.678662] ? ___bpf_prog_run+0x15d4/0x2e20 [ 92.680046] ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130 [ 92.681285] ? __bpf_prog_run32+0x6b/0x90 [ 92.682601] ? __bpf_prog_run64+0x90/0x90 [ 92.683636] ? lock_downgrade+0x370/0x370 [ 92.684647] ? mark_held_locks+0x44/0x90 [ 92.685652] ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130 [ 92.686752] ? lockdep_hardirqs_on+0x79/0x100 [ 92.688004] ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130 [ 92.688573] ? __cant_migrate+0x2b/0x80 [ 92.689192] ? bpf_test_run+0x2f4/0x510 [ 92.689869] ? bpf_test_timer_continue+0x1c0/0x1c0 [ 92.690856] ? rcu_read_lock_bh_held+0x90/0x90 [ 92.691506] ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x61/0x80 [ 92.692128] ? eth_type_trans+0x128/0x240 [ 92.692737] ? __build_skb+0x46/0x50 [ 92.693252] ? bpf_prog_test_run_skb+0x65e/0xc50 [ 92.693954] ? bpf_prog_test_run_raw_tp+0x2d0/0x2d0 [ 92.694639] ? __fget_light+0xa1/0x100 [ 92.695162] ? bpf_prog_inc+0x23/0x30 [ 92.695685] ? __sys_bpf+0xb40/0x2c80 [ 92.696324] ? bpf_link_get_from_fd+0x90/0x90 [ 92.697150] ? mark_held_locks+0x24/0x90 [ 92.698007] ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x124/0x220 [ 92.699045] ? finish_task_switch+0xe6/0x370 [ 92.700072] ? lockdep_hardirqs_on+0x79/0x100 [ 92.701233] ? finish_task_switch+0x11d/0x370 [ 92.702264] ? __switch_to+0x2c0/0x740 [ 92.703148] ? mark_held_locks+0x24/0x90 [ 92.704155] ? __x64_sys_bpf+0x45/0x50 [ 92.705146] ? do_syscall_64+0x35/0x80 [ 92.706953] ? entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae [...]
Turns out that the program rejection from e411901c0b77 ("bpf: allow for tailcalls in BPF subprograms for x64 JIT") is buggy since env->prog->aux->tail_call_reachable is never true. Commit ebf7d1f508a7 ("bpf, x64: rework pro/epilogue and tailcall handling in JIT") added a tracker into check_max_stack_depth() which propagates the tail_call_reachable condition throughout the subprograms. This info is then assigned to the subprogram's ---truncated---