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:   Tue, 10 Oct 2017 21:49:00 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: [PATCH 4.13 012/160] bpf/verifier: reject BPF_ALU64|BPF_END

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

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

From: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>


[ Upstream commit e67b8a685c7c984e834e3181ef4619cd7025a136 ]

Neither ___bpf_prog_run nor the JITs accept it.
Also adds a new test case.

Fixes: 17a5267067f3 ("bpf: verifier (add verifier core)")
Signed-off-by: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c                       |    3 ++-
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c |   16 ++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -1978,7 +1978,8 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verif
 			}
 		} else {
 			if (insn->src_reg != BPF_REG_0 || insn->off != 0 ||
-			    (insn->imm != 16 && insn->imm != 32 && insn->imm != 64)) {
+			    (insn->imm != 16 && insn->imm != 32 && insn->imm != 64) ||
+			    BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64) {
 				verbose("BPF_END uses reserved fields\n");
 				return -EINVAL;
 			}
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -6009,6 +6009,22 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
 		.result = REJECT,
 		.result_unpriv = REJECT,
 	},
+	{
+		"invalid 64-bit BPF_END",
+		.insns = {
+			BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+			{
+				.code  = BPF_ALU64 | BPF_END | BPF_TO_LE,
+				.dst_reg = BPF_REG_0,
+				.src_reg = 0,
+				.off   = 0,
+				.imm   = 32,
+			},
+			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+		},
+		.errstr = "BPF_END uses reserved fields",
+		.result = REJECT,
+	},
 };
 
 static int probe_filter_length(const struct bpf_insn *fp)


Powered by blists - more mailing lists