netdev - Re: [bpf-next PATCH v2 2/7] bpf: verifier, do explicit ALU32 bounds tracking

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 30 Mar 2020 15:23:02 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:     ecree@...arflare.com, yhs@...com, daniel@...earbox.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [bpf-next PATCH v2 2/7] bpf: verifier, do explicit ALU32 bounds
 tracking

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 02:36:39PM -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
> +static void __scalar64_min_max_lsh(struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg,
> +				   u64 umin_val, u64 umax_val)
> +{
> +	/* Special case <<32 because it is a common compiler pattern to zero
> +	 * upper bits by doing <<32 s>>32. In this case if 32bit bounds are
> +	 * positive we know this shift will also be positive so we can track
> +	 * bounds correctly. Otherwise we lose all sign bit information except
> +	 * what we can pick up from var_off. Perhaps we can generalize this
> +	 * later to shifts of any length.
> +	 */
> +	if (umin_val == 32 && umax_val == 32 && dst_reg->s32_max_value >= 0)
> +		dst_reg->smax_value = (s64)dst_reg->s32_max_value << 32;
> +	else
> +		dst_reg->smax_value = S64_MAX;

I fixed up above comment to say 'sign extend' instead of 'zero upper bit' and
applied.
Thanks a ton for the awesome work.