netdev - Re: [PATCH net] bpf: fix bug in eBPF verifier

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: <1413887742.32553.18.camel@localhost>
Date:	Tue, 21 Oct 2014 12:35:42 +0200
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] bpf: fix bug in eBPF verifier

On Mo, 2014-10-20 at 14:54 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> while comparing for verifier state equivalency the comparison
> was missing a check for uninitialized register.
> Make sure it does so and add a testcase.
> 
> Fixes: f1bca824dabb ("bpf: add search pruning optimization to verifier")
> Cc: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
> ---
> 
> while we were staring at the verifier code with Hannes during LPC
> something felt odd in this spot. Yes. It was a bug. Fix it.
> 
>  kernel/bpf/verifier.c       |    3 ++-
>  samples/bpf/test_verifier.c |   11 +++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 801f5f3..9f81818 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -1409,7 +1409,8 @@ static bool states_equal(struct verifier_state *old, struct verifier_state *cur)
>  		if (memcmp(&old->regs[i], &cur->regs[i],
>  			   sizeof(old->regs[0])) != 0) {
>  			if (old->regs[i].type == NOT_INIT ||
> -			    old->regs[i].type == UNKNOWN_VALUE)
> +			    (old->regs[i].type == UNKNOWN_VALUE &&
> +			     cur->regs[i].type != NOT_INIT))
>  				continue;
>  			return false;
>  		}

That makes sense.

Acked-by: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>

Thanks,
Hannes


--
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