Home Embedded Vulns General Vulns

CVE-2022-49985

Our Analysis: General-Purpose

Our model has classified this vulnerability as relevant to General-Purpose Systems, helping your team prioritize efforts effectively.

Published Date June 18, 2025
Last Modified June 18, 2025
CVSS Vector Not Available

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

bpf: Don't use tnum_range on array range checking for poke descriptors

Hsin-Wei reported a KASAN splat triggered by their BPF runtime fuzzer which
is based on a customized syzkaller:

BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in bpf_int_jit_compile+0x1257/0x13f0
Read of size 8 at addr ffff888004e90b58 by task syz-executor.0/1489
CPU: 1 PID: 1489 Comm: syz-executor.0 Not tainted 5.19.0 #1
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS
1.13.0-1ubuntu1.1 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
<TASK>
dump_stack_lvl+0x9c/0xc9
print_address_description.constprop.0+0x1f/0x1f0
? bpf_int_jit_compile+0x1257/0x13f0
kasan_report.cold+0xeb/0x197
? kvmalloc_node+0x170/0x200
? bpf_int_jit_compile+0x1257/0x13f0
bpf_int_jit_compile+0x1257/0x13f0
? arch_prepare_bpf_dispatcher+0xd0/0xd0
? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x43/0x70
bpf_prog_select_runtime+0x3e8/0x640
? bpf_obj_name_cpy+0x149/0x1b0
bpf_prog_load+0x102f/0x2220
? __bpf_prog_put.constprop.0+0x220/0x220
? find_held_lock+0x2c/0x110
? __might_fault+0xd6/0x180
? lock_downgrade+0x6e0/0x6e0
? lock_is_held_type+0xa6/0x120
? __might_fault+0x147/0x180
__sys_bpf+0x137b/0x6070
? bpf_perf_link_attach+0x530/0x530
? new_sync_read+0x600/0x600
? __fget_files+0x255/0x450
? lock_downgrade+0x6e0/0x6e0
? fput+0x30/0x1a0
? ksys_write+0x1a8/0x260
__x64_sys_bpf+0x7a/0xc0
? syscall_enter_from_user_mode+0x21/0x70
do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
RIP: 0033:0x7f917c4e2c2d

The problem here is that a range of tnum_range(0, map->max_entries - 1) has
limited ability to represent the concrete tight range with the tnum as the
set of resulting states from value + mask can result in a superset of the
actual intended range, and as such a tnum_in(range, reg->var_off) check may
yield true when it shouldn't, for example tnum_range(0, 2) would result in
00XX -> v = 0000, m = 0011 such that the intended set of {0, 1, 2} is here
represented by a less precise superset of {0, 1, 2, 3}. As the register is
known const scalar, really just use the concrete reg->var_off.value for the
upper index check.