On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 1:02 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon Jun 8, 2026 at 10:21 AM PDT, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 5:59 AM Jiayuan Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> bpf_sk_assign_tcp_reqsk() can assign a TCP reqsk to a non-TCP skb,
> >> causing a panic when the skb enters the wrong L4 receive path [1].
> >> An initial attempt tried to fix this in the BPF helper by checking
> >> iph->protocol, but Sashiko [2] revealed that BPF programs can bypass
> >> this check via a TOCTOU attack by modifying iph->protocol around the
> >> call:
> >>
> >>     iph->protocol = IPPROTO_TCP;
> >>     bpf_sk_assign_tcp_reqsk(udp_skb, tcp_sk);
> >>     iph->protocol = IPPROTO_UDP;
> >>
> >> Furthermore, bpf_sk_assign() has had the same class of vulnerability
> >> since its introduction — it can assign any socket type to any skb
> >> without protocol validation.  Since the BPF helper check alone cannot
> >> prevent a malicious BPF program from crashing the kernel, add protocol
> >
> > I'm curious about the BPF maintainers' stance on this kind of "bug"
> > where admin tries to shoot oneself in the foot.
> >
> > I saw Alexei said this recently, and I guess it applies here as well ?
> > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAADnVQLh7VEKAtckzz=xovpt8ovpdqshvppcwhdqu2owqx2...@mail.gmail.com/
> >
> > ---8<---
> > Not every "bug" needs a fix.
> > If a malicious bpf user wants to crash the kernel they will
> > find a way to do so. Especially with agents.
> > We cannot realistically close all of the holes.
> > Right now the priority is to fix the issues that normal
> > users can hit and not bots.
> > ---8<---
>
> In addition to that I have to add that skb_steal_sock() is performance
> critical path of networking stack. Adding runtime overheard there
> because bots can find a way to abuse the interfaces is not a good trade off.
> If there is no simple way to fix it completely on the bpf side
> then we have to flag this issue as "won't fix" and move on.

I asked if we could fix this in the verifier but it seems difficult. [0]
Since this is triggered only by BPF misuse, treating it as "won't fix"
makes more sense to me.

[0]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/

Thanks

Reply via email to