netdev - [PATCH bpf] bpf: arsh is not supported in 32 bit alu thus reject it

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: <20180110190437.2774-1-daniel@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Wed, 10 Jan 2018 20:04:37 +0100
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     ast@...com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: [PATCH bpf] bpf: arsh is not supported in 32 bit alu thus reject it

The following snippet was throwing an 'unknown opcode cc' warning
in BPF interpreter:

  0: (18) r0 = 0x0
  2: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = r0
  3: (cc) (u32) r0 s>>= (u32) r0
  4: (95) exit

Although a number of JITs do support BPF_ALU | BPF_ARSH | BPF_{K,X}
generation, not all of them do and interpreter does neither. We can
leave existing ones and implement it later in bpf-next for the
remaining ones, but reject this properly in verifier for the time
being.

Fixes: 17a5267067f3 ("bpf: verifier (add verifier core)")
Reported-by: syzbot+93c4904c5c70348a6890@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c                       |  5 ++++
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index b414d6b..4386664 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -2493,6 +2493,11 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn)
 			return -EINVAL;
 		}
 
+		if (opcode == BPF_ARSH && BPF_CLASS(insn->code) != BPF_ALU64) {
+			verbose(env, "BPF_ARSH not supported for 32 bit ALU\n");
+			return -EINVAL;
+		}
+
 		if ((opcode == BPF_LSH || opcode == BPF_RSH ||
 		     opcode == BPF_ARSH) && BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_K) {
 			int size = BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64 ? 64 : 32;
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index b510174..6bafa54 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -273,6 +273,46 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
 		.result = REJECT,
 	},
 	{
+		"arsh32 on imm",
+		.insns = {
+			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+			BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_0, 5),
+			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+		},
+		.result = REJECT,
+		.errstr = "BPF_ARSH not supported for 32 bit ALU",
+	},
+	{
+		"arsh32 on reg",
+		.insns = {
+			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 5),
+			BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
+			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+		},
+		.result = REJECT,
+		.errstr = "BPF_ARSH not supported for 32 bit ALU",
+	},
+	{
+		"arsh64 on imm",
+		.insns = {
+			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_0, 5),
+			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+		},
+		.result = ACCEPT,
+	},
+	{
+		"arsh64 on reg",
+		.insns = {
+			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 5),
+			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
+			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+		},
+		.result = ACCEPT,
+	},
+	{
 		"no bpf_exit",
 		.insns = {
 			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_MOV, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),
-- 
2.9.5