netdev - Re: [PATCH 14/17] MIPS: bpf: Prevent kernel fall over for >=32bit shifts

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: <53A811FA.5060502@imgtec.com>
Date:	Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:39:38 +0100
From:	Markos Chandras <Markos.Chandras@...tec.com>
To:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
	"linux-mips@...ux-mips.org" <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>
CC:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/17] MIPS: bpf: Prevent kernel fall over for >=32bit
 shifts

On 06/23/2014 12:08 PM, David Laight wrote:
> From: Markos Chandras
>> On 06/23/2014 10:44 AM, David Laight wrote:
>>> From: Markos Chandras
>>>> Remove BUG_ON() if the shift immediate is >=32 to avoid
>>>> kernel crashes due to malicious user input. Since the micro-assembler
>>>> will not allow an immediate greater or equal to 32, we will use the
>>>> maximum value which is 31. This will do the correct thing on either 32-
>>>> or 64-bit cores since no 64-bit instructions are being used in JIT.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure that bounding the shift to 31 bits 'is the correct thing'.
>>> I'd have thought that emulating the large shift or masking the shift
>>> to 5 bits are equally 'correct'.
>>>
>>> ...
>> Hi David,
>>
>> Since we use 32-bit registers (or rather, we ignore the top 32bits on
>> MIPS64), shifting >= 32 will always result to 0.
>> Alexei suggested [1] to allow large shifts and emulate them, so this
>> patch aims to do that by treating >=32 shift values as 31. Please tell
>> me if I got this wrong.
> 
> Shifting by 31 converts 0xffffffff to 1, not 0.
> 
> 	David
> 
> 
> 
oops indeed. Maybe it can be fixed by something like this?


diff --git a/arch/mips/net/bpf_jit.c b/arch/mips/net/bpf_jit.c
index 545c8487542c..32233ec747e0 100644
--- a/arch/mips/net/bpf_jit.c
+++ b/arch/mips/net/bpf_jit.c
@@ -151,6 +151,8 @@ static inline int optimize_div(u32 *k)
         return 0;
 }

+static inline void emit_jit_reg_move(ptr dst, ptr src, struct jit_ctx
*ctx);
+
 /* Simply emit the instruction if the JIT memory space has been
allocated */
 #define emit_instr(ctx, func, ...)                      \
 do {                                                    \
@@ -310,8 +312,10 @@ static inline void emit_sll(unsigned int dst,
unsigned int src,
 {
         /* sa is 5-bits long */
         if (sa >= BIT(5))
-                sa = BIT(5) - 1;
-        emit_instr(ctx, sll, dst, src, sa);
+                /* Shifting >= 32 results in zero */
+                emit_jit_reg_move(dst, r_zero, ctx);
+        else
+                emit_instr(ctx, sll, dst, src, sa);
 }

 static inline void emit_srlv(unsigned int dst, unsigned int src,
@@ -325,8 +329,10 @@ static inline void emit_srl(unsigned int dst,
unsigned int src,
 {
         /* sa is 5-bits long */
         if (sa >= BIT(5))
-                sa =  BIT(5) - 1;
-        emit_instr(ctx, srl, dst, src, sa);
+                /* Shifting >= 32 results in zero */
+                emit_jit_reg_move(dst, r_zero, ctx);
+        else
+                emit_instr(ctx, srl, dst, src, sa);
 }


-- 
markos
--
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