From: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@redhat.com>
To: davem@davemloft.net
Cc: ast@plumgrid.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH net] net: filter: be more defensive on div/mod by X==0
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2014 01:04:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1396652643-15647-1-git-send-email-dborkman@redhat.com> (raw)
The old interpreter behaviour was that we returned with 0
whenever we found a division by 0 would take place. In the new
interpreter we would currently just skip that instead and
continue execution.
It's true that a value of 0 as return might not be appropriate
in all cases, but current users (socket filters -> drop
packet, seccomp -> SECCOMP_RET_KILL, cls_bpf -> unclassified,
etc) seem fine with that behaviour. Better this than undefined
BPF program behaviour as it's expected that A contains the
result of the division. In future, as more use cases open up,
we could further adapt this return value to our needs, if
necessary.
So reintroduce return of 0 for division by 0 as in the old
interpreter. Also in case of K which is guaranteed to be 32bit
wide, sk_chk_filter() already takes care of preventing division
by 0 invoked through K, so we can generally spare us these tests.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@plumgrid.com>
---
net/core/filter.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++----------------
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
index 765556b..e08b382 100644
--- a/net/core/filter.c
+++ b/net/core/filter.c
@@ -295,43 +295,43 @@ select_insn:
(*(s64 *) &A) >>= K;
CONT;
BPF_ALU64_BPF_MOD_BPF_X:
+ if (unlikely(X == 0))
+ return 0;
tmp = A;
- if (X)
- A = do_div(tmp, X);
+ A = do_div(tmp, X);
CONT;
BPF_ALU_BPF_MOD_BPF_X:
+ if (unlikely(X == 0))
+ return 0;
tmp = (u32) A;
- if (X)
- A = do_div(tmp, (u32) X);
+ A = do_div(tmp, (u32) X);
CONT;
BPF_ALU64_BPF_MOD_BPF_K:
tmp = A;
- if (K)
- A = do_div(tmp, K);
+ A = do_div(tmp, K);
CONT;
BPF_ALU_BPF_MOD_BPF_K:
tmp = (u32) A;
- if (K)
- A = do_div(tmp, (u32) K);
+ A = do_div(tmp, (u32) K);
CONT;
BPF_ALU64_BPF_DIV_BPF_X:
- if (X)
- do_div(A, X);
+ if (unlikely(X == 0))
+ return 0;
+ do_div(A, X);
CONT;
BPF_ALU_BPF_DIV_BPF_X:
+ if (unlikely(X == 0))
+ return 0;
tmp = (u32) A;
- if (X)
- do_div(tmp, (u32) X);
+ do_div(tmp, (u32) X);
A = (u32) tmp;
CONT;
BPF_ALU64_BPF_DIV_BPF_K:
- if (K)
- do_div(A, K);
+ do_div(A, K);
CONT;
BPF_ALU_BPF_DIV_BPF_K:
tmp = (u32) A;
- if (K)
- do_div(tmp, (u32) K);
+ do_div(tmp, (u32) K);
A = (u32) tmp;
CONT;
BPF_ALU_BPF_END_BPF_TO_BE:
--
1.7.11.7
next reply other threads:[~2014-04-04 23:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-04 23:04 Daniel Borkmann [this message]
2014-04-07 16:55 ` [PATCH net] net: filter: be more defensive on div/mod by X==0 David Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1396652643-15647-1-git-send-email-dborkman@redhat.com \
--to=dborkman@redhat.com \
--cc=ast@plumgrid.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).