linux-kernel - [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.14 05/36] s390/bpf: use 32-bit index for tail calls

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: <20190904160122.4179-5-sashal@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed,  4 Sep 2019 12:00:51 -0400
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Yauheni Kaliuta <yauheni.kaliuta@...hat.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.14 05/36] s390/bpf: use 32-bit index for tail calls

From: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@...ux.ibm.com>

[ Upstream commit 91b4db5313a2c793aabc2143efb8ed0cf0fdd097 ]

"p runtime/jit: pass > 32bit index to tail_call" fails when
bpf_jit_enable=1, because the tail call is not executed.

This in turn is because the generated code assumes index is 64-bit,
while it must be 32-bit, and as a result prog array bounds check fails,
while it should pass. Even if bounds check would have passed, the code
that follows uses 64-bit index to compute prog array offset.

Fix by using clrj instead of clgrj for comparing index with array size,
and also by using llgfr for truncating index to 32 bits before using it
to compute prog array offset.

Fixes: 6651ee070b31 ("s390/bpf: implement bpf_tail_call() helper")
Reported-by: Yauheni Kaliuta <yauheni.kaliuta@...hat.com>
Acked-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@...ux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
 arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 10 ++++++----
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index fcb9e840727cd..b8bd841048434 100644
--- a/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -1063,8 +1063,8 @@ static noinline int bpf_jit_insn(struct bpf_jit *jit, struct bpf_prog *fp, int i
 		/* llgf %w1,map.max_entries(%b2) */
 		EMIT6_DISP_LH(0xe3000000, 0x0016, REG_W1, REG_0, BPF_REG_2,
 			      offsetof(struct bpf_array, map.max_entries));
-		/* clgrj %b3,%w1,0xa,label0: if %b3 >= %w1 goto out */
-		EMIT6_PCREL_LABEL(0xec000000, 0x0065, BPF_REG_3,
+		/* clrj %b3,%w1,0xa,label0: if (u32)%b3 >= (u32)%w1 goto out */
+		EMIT6_PCREL_LABEL(0xec000000, 0x0077, BPF_REG_3,
 				  REG_W1, 0, 0xa);
 
 		/*
@@ -1090,8 +1090,10 @@ static noinline int bpf_jit_insn(struct bpf_jit *jit, struct bpf_prog *fp, int i
 		 *         goto out;
 		 */
 
-		/* sllg %r1,%b3,3: %r1 = index * 8 */
-		EMIT6_DISP_LH(0xeb000000, 0x000d, REG_1, BPF_REG_3, REG_0, 3);
+		/* llgfr %r1,%b3: %r1 = (u32) index */
+		EMIT4(0xb9160000, REG_1, BPF_REG_3);
+		/* sllg %r1,%r1,3: %r1 *= 8 */
+		EMIT6_DISP_LH(0xeb000000, 0x000d, REG_1, REG_1, REG_0, 3);
 		/* lg %r1,prog(%b2,%r1) */
 		EMIT6_DISP_LH(0xe3000000, 0x0004, REG_1, BPF_REG_2,
 			      REG_1, offsetof(struct bpf_array, ptrs));
-- 
2.20.1