| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20181214115656.32b1aea3@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 11:56:56 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Cc: Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
Petar Penkov <ppenkov@...gle.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the bpf tree
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
between commit:
7640ead93924 ("bpf: verifier: make sure callees don't prune with caller differences")
from the bpf tree and commit:
e3da08d05700 ("bpf: allow BPF read access to qdisc pkt_len")
from the net-next tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index f8eac4a544f4,a08c67c8767e..000000000000
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@@ -13915,34 -14067,38 +14067,66 @@@ static struct bpf_test tests[] =
.result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
},
+ {
+ "calls: cross frame pruning",
+ .insns = {
+ /* r8 = !!random();
+ * call pruner()
+ * if (r8)
+ * do something bad;
+ */
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
+ BPF_FUNC_get_prandom_u32),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_8, 0),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_8, 1),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_8),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 1, 0, 4),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_8, 1, 1),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_9, BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_1, 0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER,
+ .errstr_unpriv = "function calls to other bpf functions are allowed for root only",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
+ .errstr = "!read_ok",
+ .result = REJECT,
+ },
+ {
+ "check wire_len is not readable by sockets",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1,
+ offsetof(struct __sk_buff, wire_len)),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .errstr = "invalid bpf_context access",
+ .result = REJECT,
+ },
+ {
+ "check wire_len is readable by tc classifier",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1,
+ offsetof(struct __sk_buff, wire_len)),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
+ .result = ACCEPT,
+ },
+ {
+ "check wire_len is not writable by tc classifier",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_1,
+ offsetof(struct __sk_buff, wire_len)),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
+ .errstr = "invalid bpf_context access",
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R1 leaks addr",
+ .result = REJECT,
+ },
};
static int probe_filter_length(const struct bpf_insn *fp)
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists