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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 16:47:06 +0200 From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, David Miller <davem@...hat.com>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, Wenbo Zhang <ethercflow@...il.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>, Brendan Gregg <bgregg@...flix.com>, Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 bpf-next 08/14] bpf: Add btf_struct_ids_match function On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 01:04:26PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: SNIP > > + } > > } > > } else if (!fn->check_btf_id(reg->btf_id, arg)) { > > Put this on a wishlist for now. I don't think we should expect > fb->check_btf_id() to do btf_struct_ids_match() internally, so to > support this, we'd have to call fb->check_btf_id() inside the loop > while doing WALK_STRUCT struct. But let's not change all this in this > patch set, it's involved enough already. > > > verbose(env, "Helper does not support %s in R%d\n", > > @@ -3977,7 +3982,8 @@ static int check_func_arg(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 arg, > > > > return -EACCES; > > } > > - if (!tnum_is_const(reg->var_off) || reg->var_off.value || reg->off) { > > + if (!ids_match && > > + (!tnum_is_const(reg->var_off) || reg->var_off.value || reg->off)) { > > Isn't this still wrong? if ids_match, but reg->var_off is non-zero, > that's still bad, right? > ids_match just "mitigates" reg->off check, so should be something like this: > > if ((reg->off && !ids_match) || !tnum_is_const(reg->var_off) || > reg->var_off.value) > ... then bad ... damn you're right, those are separated things, I mixed it up, I'll send new version thanks, jirka
Powered by blists - more mailing lists