netdev - [PATCH net] net: filter: be more defensive on div/mod by X==0

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat,  5 Apr 2014 01:04:03 +0200
From:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
To:	davem@...emloft.net
Cc:	ast@...mgrid.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH net] net: filter: be more defensive on div/mod by X==0

The old interpreter behaviour was that we returned with 0
whenever we found a division by 0 would take place. In the new
interpreter we would currently just skip that instead and
continue execution.

It's true that a value of 0 as return might not be appropriate
in all cases, but current users (socket filters -> drop
packet, seccomp -> SECCOMP_RET_KILL, cls_bpf -> unclassified,
etc) seem fine with that behaviour. Better this than undefined
BPF program behaviour as it's expected that A contains the
result of the division. In future, as more use cases open up,
we could further adapt this return value to our needs, if
necessary.

So reintroduce return of 0 for division by 0 as in the old
interpreter. Also in case of K which is guaranteed to be 32bit
wide, sk_chk_filter() already takes care of preventing division
by 0 invoked through K, so we can generally spare us these tests.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
Reviewed-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
---
 net/core/filter.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++----------------
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
index 765556b..e08b382 100644
--- a/net/core/filter.c
+++ b/net/core/filter.c
@@ -295,43 +295,43 @@ select_insn:
 		(*(s64 *) &A) >>= K;
 		CONT;
 	BPF_ALU64_BPF_MOD_BPF_X:
+		if (unlikely(X == 0))
+			return 0;
 		tmp = A;
-		if (X)
-			A = do_div(tmp, X);
+		A = do_div(tmp, X);
 		CONT;
 	BPF_ALU_BPF_MOD_BPF_X:
+		if (unlikely(X == 0))
+			return 0;
 		tmp = (u32) A;
-		if (X)
-			A = do_div(tmp, (u32) X);
+		A = do_div(tmp, (u32) X);
 		CONT;
 	BPF_ALU64_BPF_MOD_BPF_K:
 		tmp = A;
-		if (K)
-			A = do_div(tmp, K);
+		A = do_div(tmp, K);
 		CONT;
 	BPF_ALU_BPF_MOD_BPF_K:
 		tmp = (u32) A;
-		if (K)
-			A = do_div(tmp, (u32) K);
+		A = do_div(tmp, (u32) K);
 		CONT;
 	BPF_ALU64_BPF_DIV_BPF_X:
-		if (X)
-			do_div(A, X);
+		if (unlikely(X == 0))
+			return 0;
+		do_div(A, X);
 		CONT;
 	BPF_ALU_BPF_DIV_BPF_X:
+		if (unlikely(X == 0))
+			return 0;
 		tmp = (u32) A;
-		if (X)
-			do_div(tmp, (u32) X);
+		do_div(tmp, (u32) X);
 		A = (u32) tmp;
 		CONT;
 	BPF_ALU64_BPF_DIV_BPF_K:
-		if (K)
-			do_div(A, K);
+		do_div(A, K);
 		CONT;
 	BPF_ALU_BPF_DIV_BPF_K:
 		tmp = (u32) A;
-		if (K)
-			do_div(tmp, (u32) K);
+		do_div(tmp, (u32) K);
 		A = (u32) tmp;
 		CONT;
 	BPF_ALU_BPF_END_BPF_TO_BE:
-- 
1.7.11.7

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html