linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.14 074/118] bpf: arsh is not supported in 32 bit alu thus reject it

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <20180115123419.911352398@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:35:01 +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,
        syzbot+93c4904c5c70348a6890@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.14 074/118] bpf: arsh is not supported in 32 bit alu thus reject it

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

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

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>

commit 7891a87efc7116590eaba57acc3c422487802c6f upstream.

The following snippet was throwing an 'unknown opcode cc' warning
in BPF interpreter:

  0: (18) r0 = 0x0
  2: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = r0
  3: (cc) (u32) r0 s>>= (u32) r0
  4: (95) exit

Although a number of JITs do support BPF_ALU | BPF_ARSH | BPF_{K,X}
generation, not all of them do and interpreter does neither. We can
leave existing ones and implement it later in bpf-next for the
remaining ones, but reject this properly in verifier for the time
being.

Fixes: 17a5267067f3 ("bpf: verifier (add verifier core)")
Reported-by: syzbot+93c4904c5c70348a6890@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c                       |    5 +++
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c |   40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+)

--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -2493,6 +2493,11 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verif
 			return -EINVAL;
 		}
 
+		if (opcode == BPF_ARSH && BPF_CLASS(insn->code) != BPF_ALU64) {
+			verbose("BPF_ARSH not supported for 32 bit ALU\n");
+			return -EINVAL;
+		}
+
 		if ((opcode == BPF_LSH || opcode == BPF_RSH ||
 		     opcode == BPF_ARSH) && BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_K) {
 			int size = BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64 ? 64 : 32;
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -273,6 +273,46 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
 		.result = REJECT,
 	},
 	{
+		"arsh32 on imm",
+		.insns = {
+			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+			BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_0, 5),
+			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+		},
+		.result = REJECT,
+		.errstr = "BPF_ARSH not supported for 32 bit ALU",
+	},
+	{
+		"arsh32 on reg",
+		.insns = {
+			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 5),
+			BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
+			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+		},
+		.result = REJECT,
+		.errstr = "BPF_ARSH not supported for 32 bit ALU",
+	},
+	{
+		"arsh64 on imm",
+		.insns = {
+			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_0, 5),
+			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+		},
+		.result = ACCEPT,
+	},
+	{
+		"arsh64 on reg",
+		.insns = {
+			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 5),
+			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
+			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+		},
+		.result = ACCEPT,
+	},
+	{
 		"no bpf_exit",
 		.insns = {
 			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_MOV, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),