linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.9 60/66] bpf: fix bpf_tail

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 29 Jan 2018 13:57:24 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: [PATCH 4.9 60/66] bpf: fix bpf_tail_call() x64 JIT

4.9-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>

[ upstream commit 90caccdd8cc0215705f18b92771b449b01e2474a ]

- bpf prog_array just like all other types of bpf array accepts 32-bit index.
  Clarify that in the comment.
- fix x64 JIT of bpf_tail_call which was incorrectly loading 8 instead of 4 bytes
- tighten corresponding check in the interpreter to stay consistent

The JIT bug can be triggered after introduction of BPF_F_NUMA_NODE flag
in commit 96eabe7a40aa in 4.14. Before that the map_flags would stay zero and
though JIT code is wrong it will check bounds correctly.
Hence two fixes tags. All other JITs don't have this problem.

Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Fixes: 96eabe7a40aa ("bpf: Allow selecting numa node during map creation")
Fixes: b52f00e6a715 ("x86: bpf_jit: implement bpf_tail_call() helper")
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
 arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c |    4 ++--
 kernel/bpf/core.c           |    2 +-
 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -278,9 +278,9 @@ static void emit_bpf_tail_call(u8 **ppro
 	/* if (index >= array->map.max_entries)
 	 *   goto out;
 	 */
-	EMIT4(0x48, 0x8B, 0x46,                   /* mov rax, qword ptr [rsi + 16] */
+	EMIT2(0x89, 0xD2);                        /* mov edx, edx */
+	EMIT3(0x39, 0x56,                         /* cmp dword ptr [rsi + 16], edx */
 	      offsetof(struct bpf_array, map.max_entries));
-	EMIT3(0x48, 0x39, 0xD0);                  /* cmp rax, rdx */
 #define OFFSET1 43 /* number of bytes to jump */
 	EMIT2(X86_JBE, OFFSET1);                  /* jbe out */
 	label1 = cnt;
--- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
@@ -715,7 +715,7 @@ select_insn:
 		struct bpf_map *map = (struct bpf_map *) (unsigned long) BPF_R2;
 		struct bpf_array *array = container_of(map, struct bpf_array, map);
 		struct bpf_prog *prog;
-		u64 index = BPF_R3;
+		u32 index = BPF_R3;
 
 		if (unlikely(index >= array->map.max_entries))
 			goto out;