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]
Date:   Fri, 31 May 2019 10:16:48 +0200
From:   Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>
To:     Song Liu <liu.song.a23@...il.com>
Cc:     Luke Nelson <luke.r.nels@...il.com>, Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v2] bpf, riscv: clear high 32 bits for ALU32 add/sub/neg/lsh/rsh/arsh

On Fri, 31 May 2019 at 01:08, Song Liu <liu.song.a23@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 3:30 PM Luke Nelson <luke.r.nels@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > In BPF, 32-bit ALU operations should zero-extend their results into
> > the 64-bit registers.
> >
> > The current BPF JIT on RISC-V emits incorrect instructions that perform
> > sign extension only (e.g., addw, subw) on 32-bit add, sub, lsh, rsh,
> > arsh, and neg. This behavior diverges from the interpreter and JITs
> > for other architectures.
> >
> > This patch fixes the bugs by performing zero extension on the destination
> > register of 32-bit ALU operations.
> >
> > Fixes: 2353ecc6f91f ("bpf, riscv: add BPF JIT for RV64G")
> > Cc: Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Luke Nelson <luke.r.nels@...il.com>
>
> Acked-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
>

Luke, thanks for fixing this! Nice work!

Acked-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>

>
> > ---
> > The original patch is
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/30/1370
> >
> > This version is rebased against the bpf tree.
> > ---
> >  arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> > index e5c8d675bd6e..426d5c33ea90 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> > @@ -751,10 +751,14 @@ static int emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
> >         case BPF_ALU | BPF_ADD | BPF_X:
> >         case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_ADD | BPF_X:
> >                 emit(is64 ? rv_add(rd, rd, rs) : rv_addw(rd, rd, rs), ctx);
> > +               if (!is64)
> > +                       emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
> >                 break;
> >         case BPF_ALU | BPF_SUB | BPF_X:
> >         case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_SUB | BPF_X:
> >                 emit(is64 ? rv_sub(rd, rd, rs) : rv_subw(rd, rd, rs), ctx);
> > +               if (!is64)
> > +                       emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
> >                 break;
> >         case BPF_ALU | BPF_AND | BPF_X:
> >         case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_AND | BPF_X:
> > @@ -795,14 +799,20 @@ static int emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
> >         case BPF_ALU | BPF_LSH | BPF_X:
> >         case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_LSH | BPF_X:
> >                 emit(is64 ? rv_sll(rd, rd, rs) : rv_sllw(rd, rd, rs), ctx);
> > +               if (!is64)
> > +                       emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
> >                 break;
> >         case BPF_ALU | BPF_RSH | BPF_X:
> >         case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_RSH | BPF_X:
> >                 emit(is64 ? rv_srl(rd, rd, rs) : rv_srlw(rd, rd, rs), ctx);
> > +               if (!is64)
> > +                       emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
> >                 break;
> >         case BPF_ALU | BPF_ARSH | BPF_X:
> >         case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_ARSH | BPF_X:
> >                 emit(is64 ? rv_sra(rd, rd, rs) : rv_sraw(rd, rd, rs), ctx);
> > +               if (!is64)
> > +                       emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
> >                 break;
> >
> >         /* dst = -dst */
> > @@ -810,6 +820,8 @@ static int emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
> >         case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_NEG:
> >                 emit(is64 ? rv_sub(rd, RV_REG_ZERO, rd) :
> >                      rv_subw(rd, RV_REG_ZERO, rd), ctx);
> > +               if (!is64)
> > +                       emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
> >                 break;
> >
> >         /* dst = BSWAP##imm(dst) */
> > @@ -964,14 +976,20 @@ static int emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
> >         case BPF_ALU | BPF_LSH | BPF_K:
> >         case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_LSH | BPF_K:
> >                 emit(is64 ? rv_slli(rd, rd, imm) : rv_slliw(rd, rd, imm), ctx);
> > +               if (!is64)
> > +                       emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
> >                 break;
> >         case BPF_ALU | BPF_RSH | BPF_K:
> >         case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_RSH | BPF_K:
> >                 emit(is64 ? rv_srli(rd, rd, imm) : rv_srliw(rd, rd, imm), ctx);
> > +               if (!is64)
> > +                       emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
> >                 break;
> >         case BPF_ALU | BPF_ARSH | BPF_K:
> >         case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_ARSH | BPF_K:
> >                 emit(is64 ? rv_srai(rd, rd, imm) : rv_sraiw(rd, rd, imm), ctx);
> > +               if (!is64)
> > +                       emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
> >                 break;
> >
> >         /* JUMP off */
> > --
> > 2.19.1
> >

Powered by blists - more mailing lists