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]

Message-ID: <05CE7897-C58E-40C0-8E08-C8E948B70286@zytor.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Apr 2020 00:13:05 -0700
From:   hpa@...or.com
To:     Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>
CC:     Luke Nelson <lukenels@...washington.edu>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        Luke Nelson <luke.r.nels@...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 April 21, 2020 12:26:12 PM PDT, Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com> wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:39 AM H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>> x32 is not x86-32.  In Linux we generally call the latter "i386".
>
>Agreed.  Most of the previous patches to this file use "x32" and this
>one just wanted to be consistent.
>
>> 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.
>
>I don't see how the bug statement is incorrect, which merely points
>out that "C7 C0 0" is an invalid instruction, regardless of whether
>the JIT intended to emit C7 /0 imm32, B8+r imm32, 31 /r, 33 /r, or any
>other equivalent form.

C7 C0 0 is *not* an invalid instruction, although it is incomplete. It is a different, but arguably even more serious, problem.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.