From: <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: ast@fb.com, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
davem@davemloft.net, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
jannh@google.com
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>, <stable-commits@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Patch "bpf: fix check_map_func_compatibility logic" has been added to the 4.4-stable tree
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 11:25:52 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <146342315261208@kroah.com> (raw)
This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
bpf: fix check_map_func_compatibility logic
to the 4.4-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
The filename of the patch is:
bpf-fix-check_map_func_compatibility-logic.patch
and it can be found in the queue-4.4 subdirectory.
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@vger.kernel.org> know about it.
>From foo@baz Mon May 16 11:21:32 PDT 2016
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@fb.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 18:56:21 -0700
Subject: bpf: fix check_map_func_compatibility logic
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@fb.com>
[ Upstream commit 6aff67c85c9e5a4bc99e5211c1bac547936626ca ]
The commit 35578d798400 ("bpf: Implement function bpf_perf_event_read() that get the selected hardware PMU conuter")
introduced clever way to check bpf_helper<->map_type compatibility.
Later on commit a43eec304259 ("bpf: introduce bpf_perf_event_output() helper") adjusted
the logic and inadvertently broke it.
Get rid of the clever bool compare and go back to two-way check
from map and from helper perspective.
Fixes: a43eec304259 ("bpf: introduce bpf_perf_event_output() helper")
Reported-by: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -239,15 +239,6 @@ static const char * const reg_type_str[]
[CONST_IMM] = "imm",
};
-static const struct {
- int map_type;
- int func_id;
-} func_limit[] = {
- {BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY, BPF_FUNC_tail_call},
- {BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERF_EVENT_ARRAY, BPF_FUNC_perf_event_read},
- {BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERF_EVENT_ARRAY, BPF_FUNC_perf_event_output},
-};
-
static void print_verifier_state(struct verifier_env *env)
{
enum bpf_reg_type t;
@@ -898,24 +889,44 @@ static int check_func_arg(struct verifie
static int check_map_func_compatibility(struct bpf_map *map, int func_id)
{
- bool bool_map, bool_func;
- int i;
-
if (!map)
return 0;
- for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(func_limit); i++) {
- bool_map = (map->map_type == func_limit[i].map_type);
- bool_func = (func_id == func_limit[i].func_id);
- /* only when map & func pair match it can continue.
- * don't allow any other map type to be passed into
- * the special func;
- */
- if (bool_func && bool_map != bool_func)
- return -EINVAL;
+ /* We need a two way check, first is from map perspective ... */
+ switch (map->map_type) {
+ case BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY:
+ if (func_id != BPF_FUNC_tail_call)
+ goto error;
+ break;
+ case BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERF_EVENT_ARRAY:
+ if (func_id != BPF_FUNC_perf_event_read &&
+ func_id != BPF_FUNC_perf_event_output)
+ goto error;
+ break;
+ default:
+ break;
+ }
+
+ /* ... and second from the function itself. */
+ switch (func_id) {
+ case BPF_FUNC_tail_call:
+ if (map->map_type != BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY)
+ goto error;
+ break;
+ case BPF_FUNC_perf_event_read:
+ case BPF_FUNC_perf_event_output:
+ if (map->map_type != BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERF_EVENT_ARRAY)
+ goto error;
+ break;
+ default:
+ break;
}
return 0;
+error:
+ verbose("cannot pass map_type %d into func %d\n",
+ map->map_type, func_id);
+ return -EINVAL;
}
static int check_call(struct verifier_env *env, int func_id)
Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from ast@fb.com are
queue-4.4/samples-bpf-fix-trace_output-example.patch
queue-4.4/bpf-fix-refcnt-overflow.patch
queue-4.4/bpf-verifier-reject-invalid-ld_abs-bpf_dw-instruction.patch
queue-4.4/bpf-fix-check_map_func_compatibility-logic.patch
reply other threads:[~2016-05-16 18:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=146342315261208@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=ast@fb.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=stable-commits@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stable@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