netdev - more on FP operations

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]

Message-Id: <20170420.140617.91794616324352770.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:06:17 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     ast@...com
CC:     borkmann@...earbox.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: more on FP operations

I'm running test_verifier for testing, and I notice in my JIT that a
32-bit move from the frame pointer (BPF_REG_10) ends up in the JIT.

It is from this test:

		"unpriv: partial copy of pointer",
		.insns = {
			BPF_MOV32_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
		},
		.errstr_unpriv = "R10 partial copy",
		.result_unpriv = REJECT,
		.result = ACCEPT,

It seems to suggest that privileged code is allowed to do this, but I
can't think of a legitimate usage.

I really want to be able to JIT anything the verifier accepts, but I
have a hard time justifying adding 32-bit FP register move support,
adjusting for the stack bias, etc.

Thanks.