[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20191016004138.24845-2-christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 02:41:36 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
To: christian.brauner@...ntu.com
Cc: ast@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
kafai@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
songliubraving@...com, yhs@...com, Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/3] bpf: use check_zeroed_user() in bpf_check_uarg_tail_zero()
In v5.4-rc2 we added a new helper (cf. [1]) check_zeroed_user() which
does what bpf_check_uarg_tail_zero() is doing generically. We're slowly
switching such codepaths over to use check_zeroed_user() instead of
using their own hand-rolled version.
[1]: f5a1a536fa14 ("lib: introduce copy_struct_from_user() helper")
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org
Acked-by: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
---
/* v1 */
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20191009160907.10981-2-christian.brauner@ubuntu.com
/* v2 */
- Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>:
- Add a comment in bpf_check_uarg_tail_zero() to clarify that
copy_struct_from_user() should be used whenever possible instead.
---
kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 26 +++++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
index 82eabd4e38ad..b289ae747cae 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
@@ -58,35 +58,31 @@ static const struct bpf_map_ops * const bpf_map_types[] = {
* There is a ToCToU between this function call and the following
* copy_from_user() call. However, this is not a concern since this function is
* meant to be a future-proofing of bits.
+ *
+ * Note, instead of using bpf_check_uarg_tail_zero() followed by
+ * copy_from_user() use the dedicated copy_struct_from_user() helper which
+ * performs both tasks whenever possible.
*/
int bpf_check_uarg_tail_zero(void __user *uaddr,
size_t expected_size,
size_t actual_size)
{
- unsigned char __user *addr;
- unsigned char __user *end;
- unsigned char val;
+ size_t size = min(expected_size, actual_size);
+ size_t rest = max(expected_size, actual_size) - size;
int err;
if (unlikely(actual_size > PAGE_SIZE)) /* silly large */
return -E2BIG;
- if (unlikely(!access_ok(uaddr, actual_size)))
- return -EFAULT;
-
if (actual_size <= expected_size)
return 0;
- addr = uaddr + expected_size;
- end = uaddr + actual_size;
+ err = check_zeroed_user(uaddr + expected_size, rest);
+ if (err < 0)
+ return err;
- for (; addr < end; addr++) {
- err = get_user(val, addr);
- if (err)
- return err;
- if (val)
- return -E2BIG;
- }
+ if (err)
+ return -E2BIG;
return 0;
}
--
2.23.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists