linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.19 368/639] nfp: bpf: fix static check error through tightening shift amount adjustment

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: <20200124093133.165700968@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 24 Jan 2020 10:28:58 +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,
        Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
        Quentin Monnet <quentin.monnet@...ronome.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.19 368/639] nfp: bpf: fix static check error through tightening shift amount adjustment

From: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com>

[ Upstream commit 69e168ebdcfcb87ce7252d4857d570f99996fa27 ]

NFP shift instruction has something special. If shift direction is left
then shift amount of 1 to 31 is specified as 32 minus the amount to shift.

But no need to do this for indirect shift which has shift amount be 0. Even
after we do this subtraction, shift amount 0 will be turned into 32 which
will eventually be encoded the same as 0 because only low 5 bits are
encoded, but shift amount be 32 will fail the FIELD_PREP check done later
on shift mask (0x1f), due to 32 is out of mask range. Such error has been
observed when compiling nfp/bpf/jit.c using gcc 8.3 + O3.

This issue has started when indirect shift support added after which the
incoming shift amount to __emit_shf could be 0, therefore it is at that
time shift amount adjustment inside __emit_shf should have been tightened.

Fixes: 991f5b3651f6 ("nfp: bpf: support logic indirect shifts (BPF_[L|R]SH | BPF_X)")
Reported-by: Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>
Reported-by: Pablo Cascón <pablo.cascon@...ronome.com
Reviewed-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin.monnet@...ronome.com>
Reviewed-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Signed-off-by: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/bpf/jit.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/bpf/jit.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/bpf/jit.c
index 4e18d95e548f1..c3ce0fb47a0f0 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/bpf/jit.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/bpf/jit.c
@@ -326,7 +326,18 @@ __emit_shf(struct nfp_prog *nfp_prog, u16 dst, enum alu_dst_ab dst_ab,
 		return;
 	}
 
-	if (sc == SHF_SC_L_SHF)
+	/* NFP shift instruction has something special. If shift direction is
+	 * left then shift amount of 1 to 31 is specified as 32 minus the amount
+	 * to shift.
+	 *
+	 * But no need to do this for indirect shift which has shift amount be
+	 * 0. Even after we do this subtraction, shift amount 0 will be turned
+	 * into 32 which will eventually be encoded the same as 0 because only
+	 * low 5 bits are encoded, but shift amount be 32 will fail the
+	 * FIELD_PREP check done later on shift mask (0x1f), due to 32 is out of
+	 * mask range.
+	 */
+	if (sc == SHF_SC_L_SHF && shift)
 		shift = 32 - shift;
 
 	insn = OP_SHF_BASE |
-- 
2.20.1