linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.1 110/127] arm64: bpf: fix mod-by-zero case

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]

Message-Id: <20160127180811.283389253@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:14:34 -0800
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, Zi Shen Lim <zlim.lnx@...il.com>,
	Yang Shi <yang.shi@...aro.org>, Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.1 110/127] arm64: bpf: fix mod-by-zero case

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

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

From: Zi Shen Lim <zlim.lnx@...il.com>

commit 14e589ff4aa3f28a5424e92b6495ecb8950080f7 upstream.

Turns out in the case of modulo by zero in a BPF program:
	A = A % X;  (X == 0)
the expected behavior is to terminate with return value 0.

The bug in JIT is exposed by a new test case [1].

[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/4/499

Signed-off-by: Zi Shen Lim <zlim.lnx@...il.com>
Reported-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@...aro.org>
Reported-by: Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>
CC: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
Fixes: e54bcde3d69d ("arm64: eBPF JIT compiler")
Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c |   21 +++++++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

--- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -269,6 +269,8 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_i
 		break;
 	case BPF_ALU | BPF_DIV | BPF_X:
 	case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_X:
+	case BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD | BPF_X:
+	case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_X:
 	{
 		const u8 r0 = bpf2a64[BPF_REG_0];
 
@@ -281,16 +283,19 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_i
 		check_imm26(jmp_offset);
 		emit(A64_B(jmp_offset), ctx);
 		/* else */
-		emit(A64_UDIV(is64, dst, dst, src), ctx);
+		switch (BPF_OP(code)) {
+		case BPF_DIV:
+			emit(A64_UDIV(is64, dst, dst, src), ctx);
+			break;
+		case BPF_MOD:
+			ctx->tmp_used = 1;
+			emit(A64_UDIV(is64, tmp, dst, src), ctx);
+			emit(A64_MUL(is64, tmp, tmp, src), ctx);
+			emit(A64_SUB(is64, dst, dst, tmp), ctx);
+			break;
+		}
 		break;
 	}
-	case BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD | BPF_X:
-	case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_X:
-		ctx->tmp_used = 1;
-		emit(A64_UDIV(is64, tmp, dst, src), ctx);
-		emit(A64_MUL(is64, tmp, tmp, src), ctx);
-		emit(A64_SUB(is64, dst, dst, tmp), ctx);
-		break;
 	case BPF_ALU | BPF_LSH | BPF_X:
 	case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_LSH | BPF_X:
 		emit(A64_LSLV(is64, dst, dst, src), ctx);