linux-kernel - [PATCH bpf] bpf, arm64: fix bug in BPF_LDX

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 23:59:17 +0000
From: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@...il.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
	Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>,
	Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
	Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>,
	KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
	Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
	Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
	bpf@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: puranjay12@...il.com
Subject: [PATCH bpf] bpf, arm64: fix bug in BPF_LDX_MEMSX

A64_LDRSW() takes three registers: Xt, Xn, Xm as arguments and it loads
and sign extends the value at address Xn + Xm into register Xt.

Currently, the offset is being directly used in place of the tmp
register which has the offset already loaded by the last emitted
instruction.

This will cause JIT failures. The easiest way to reproduce this is to
test the following code through test_bpf module:

{
	"BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_W",
	.u.insns_int = {
		BPF_LD_IMM64(R1, 0x00000000deadbeefULL),
		BPF_LD_IMM64(R2, 0xffffffffdeadbeefULL),
		BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, R10, R1, -7),
		BPF_LDX_MEMSX(BPF_W, R0, R10, -7),
		BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JNE, R0, R2, 1),
		BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_MOV, R0, 0),
		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
	},
	INTERNAL,
	{ },
	{ { 0, 0 } },
	.stack_depth = 7,
},

We need to use the offset as -7 to trigger this code path, there could
be other valid ways to trigger this from proper BPF programs as well.

This code is rejected by the JIT because -7 is passed to A64_LDRSW() but
it expects a valid register (0 - 31).

 roott@pjy:~# modprobe test_bpf test_name="BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_W"
 [11300.490371] test_bpf: test_bpf: set 'test_bpf' as the default test_suite.
 [11300.491750] test_bpf: #345 BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_W
 [11300.493179] aarch64_insn_encode_register: unknown register encoding -7
 [11300.494133] aarch64_insn_encode_register: unknown register encoding -7
 [11300.495292] FAIL to select_runtime err=-524
 [11300.496804] test_bpf: Summary: 0 PASSED, 1 FAILED, [0/0 JIT'ed]
 modprobe: ERROR: could not insert 'test_bpf': Invalid argument

Applying this patch fixes the issue.

 root@pjy:~# modprobe test_bpf test_name="BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_W"
 [  292.837436] test_bpf: test_bpf: set 'test_bpf' as the default test_suite.
 [  292.839416] test_bpf: #345 BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_W jited:1 156 PASS
 [  292.844794] test_bpf: Summary: 1 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1/1 JIT'ed]

Fixes: cc88f540da52 ("bpf, arm64: Support sign-extension load instructions")
Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@...il.com>
---
 arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index c5b461dda438..48b19a233299 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -1256,7 +1256,7 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx,
 			} else {
 				emit_a64_mov_i(1, tmp, off, ctx);
 				if (sign_extend)
-					emit(A64_LDRSW(dst, src_adj, off_adj), ctx);
+					emit(A64_LDRSW(dst, src, tmp), ctx);
 				else
 					emit(A64_LDR32(dst, src, tmp), ctx);
 			}
-- 
2.40.1