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: <CAPwCz7_tnjq32duJSDj21LpRe5TFvGGszH4joQr1DGTjNd7GcA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:26:26 +0200
From:	Jan Seiffert <kaffeemonster@...glemail.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Matt Evans <matt@...abs.org>
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION][PATCH] bpf_jit drops the ball on indirect negative
 mem references

2012/3/28 Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>:
> On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 21:15 +0200, Jan Seiffert wrote:
>> Consider the following test program:
>>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>> #include <sys/types.h>
>> #include <sys/socket.h>
>> #include <netinet/in.h>
>> #include <pcap-bpf.h>
>>
>> #define die(x) do {perror(x); return 1;} while (0)
>> struct bpf_insn udp_filter[] = {
>>       /*   0 */ BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX|BPF_W|BPF_IMM, -1048576+(0)), /* leax        net[0] */
>>       /*   1 */ BPF_STMT(BPF_LD|BPF_B|BPF_IND, 0),             /* ldb [x+0] */
>>       /*   2 */ BPF_STMT(BPF_RET|BPF_A, 0),                    /* ret a */
>> };
>
> When this point was raised some weeks ago, we wanted to see a _real_ use
> of negative mem reference.
>
> You provide a test program but what this filter is supposed to do
> exactly ?
>

Say you have a UDP socket, and you want to filter for bogus source
addresses (drop already in kernel to save the context switch).
To have only one bpf program for ipv4 and ipv6 (you have to checked
the same bogus v4 addresses in mapped space), there is a point where
it elegant to have a negative offset saved in the X register.
This is how i found the Bug.

But use case or not, the jits behavior is different than the interpreter.

Example (not the complete program):

struct bpf_insn UDPPValid[] = {
        /*   0 */ BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX|BPF_W|BPF_IMM, -1048576+(12)),
        /*   1 */ BPF_STMT(BPF_LD|BPF_B|BPF_ABS, -1048576+(0)),
        /*   2 */ BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU|BPF_AND|BPF_K, 0xf0),
        /*   3 */ BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, 0x40, 22 - 4, 0),
        /*   4 */ BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, 0x60, 5 - 5, 39 - 5),
        /*   5 */ BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, 0, 12 - 6, 0),
        /*   6 */ BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, 0x20010DB8, 39 - 7, 0),
        /*   7 */ BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, 0x20010002, 18 - 8, 0),
        /*   8 */ BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU|BPF_AND|BPF_K, 0xfffffff0),
        /*   9 */ BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, 0x20010010, 39 - 10, 0),
        /*  10 */ BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU|BPF_AND|BPF_K, 0xff000000),
        /*  11 */ BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, 0xff000000, 39 - 12, 37 - 12),
        /*  12 */ BPF_STMT(BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_ABS, -1048576+(12)),
        /*  13 */ BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, 0, 0, 37 - 14),
        /*  14 */ BPF_STMT(BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_ABS, -1048576+(16)),
        /*  15 */ BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, 0xffff, 21 - 16, 0),
        /*  16 */ BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, 0x0064FF9B, 21 - 17, 0),
        /*  17 */ BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, 0, 39 - 18, 37 -
18),
        /*  18 */ BPF_STMT(BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_ABS, -1048576+(12)),
        /*  19 */ BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU|BPF_AND|BPF_K, 0xffff0000),
        /*  20 */ BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, 0, 39 - 21, 37 -
21),
        /*  21 */ BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX|BPF_W|BPF_IMM, -1048576+(20)),
        /*  22 */ BPF_STMT(BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_IND, 0),
        /*  23 */ BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, 0xffffffff, 39 - 24,
0),
        /*  24 */ BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU|BPF_AND|BPF_K, 0xffffff00),
        /*  25 */ BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, 0xC0000000, 39 - 26,
0),
        /*  26 */ BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, 0xC0000200, 39 - 27,
0),
        /*  27 */ BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, 0xC6336400, 39 - 28,
0),
        /*  28 */ BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, 0xCB007100, 39 - 29,
0),
        /*  29 */ BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, 0xC0586300, 39 - 30,
0),
        /*  30 */ BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU|BPF_AND|BPF_K, 0xfffe0000),
        /*  31 */ BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, 0xC6120000, 39 - 32,
0),
        /*  32 */ BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU|BPF_AND|BPF_K, 0xff000000),
        /*  33 */ BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, 0, 39 - 34, 0),
        /*  34 */ BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU|BPF_AND|BPF_K, 0xf0000000),
        /*  35 */ BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, 0xE0000000, 39 - 36,
0),
        /*  36 */ BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K, 0xF0000000, 39 - 37,
0),
        /*  37 */ BPF_STMT(BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_LEN, 0),
        /*  38 */ BPF_STMT(BPF_RET|BPF_A, 0),
        /*  39 */ BPF_STMT(BPF_RET|BPF_K, 0),
};

>
>

Greetings
Jan

-- 
˙qɐɥ ʇɟnɐʞǝƃ ʎɐqǝ ıǝq ɹnʇɐʇsɐʇ ǝuıǝ ɹıɯ ɥɔı sɐp lɐɯ ǝʇzʇǝl sɐp ʇsı sɐp
'ʇɯɯɐpɹǝʌ
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ