netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf 1/2] bpf, x32: Fix invalid instruction in 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 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:   Tue, 21 Apr 2020 10:39:00 -0700
From:   "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:     Luke Nelson <lukenels@...washington.edu>, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Luke Nelson <luke.r.nels@...il.com>, Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>,
        Wang YanQing <udknight@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        x86@...nel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf 1/2] bpf, x32: Fix invalid instruction in BPF_LDX
 zero-extension

On 2020-04-21 10:15, Luke Nelson wrote:
> The current JIT uses the following sequence to zero-extend into the
> upper 32 bits of the destination register for BPF_LDX BPF_{B,H,W},
> when the destination register is not on the stack:
> 
>   EMIT3(0xC7, add_1reg(0xC0, dst_hi), 0);
> 
> However, this is not a valid instruction on x86.
> 
> This patch fixes the problem by instead emitting "xor dst_hi,dst_hi"
> to clear the upper 32 bits.

x32 is not x86-32.  In Linux we generally call the latter "i386".

C7 /0 imm32 is a valid instruction on i386. However, it is also
inefficient when the destination is a register, because B8+r imm32 is
equivalent, and when the value is zero, XOR is indeed more efficient.

The real error is using EMIT3() instead of EMIT2_off32(), but XOR is
more efficient. However, let's make the bug statement *correct*, or it
is going to confuse the Hades out of people in the future.

	-hpa