netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] bpf, x32: Fix bug for BPF_JMP | {BPF_JSGT, BPF_JSLE, BPF_JSLT, BPF

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 PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 1 May 2019 23:44:09 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Wang YanQing <udknight@...il.com>, ast@...nel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru, tglx@...utronix.de,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] bpf, x32: Fix bug for BPF_JMP | {BPF_JSGT, BPF_JSLE,
 BPF_JSLT, BPF_JSGE}

On 04/27/2019 10:28 AM, Wang YanQing wrote:
> The current method to compare 64-bit numbers for conditional jump is:
> 
> 1) Compare the high 32-bit first.
> 
> 2) If the high 32-bit isn't the same, then goto step 4.
> 
> 3) Compare the low 32-bit.
> 
> 4) Check the desired condition.
> 
> This method is right for unsigned comparison, but it is buggy for signed
> comparison, because it does signed comparison for low 32-bit too.
> 
> There is only one sign bit in 64-bit number, that is the MSB in the 64-bit
> number, it is wrong to treat low 32-bit as signed number and do the signed
> comparison for it.
> 
> This patch fixes the bug and adds a testcase in selftests/bpf for such bug.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wang YanQing <udknight@...il.com>

Applied, thanks!