[PATCH 6.12.y 2/2] netfilter: nft_byteorder: initialise the marked destination span

[Abdifatah Suruur <suruurism@gmail.com>]

nft_byteorder_eval() writes only priv->len / priv->size whole elements,
while nft_parse_register_store() marks DIV_ROUND_UP(priv->len, 4) full
32-bit words as initialised.  For len/size combinations that do not fill
the last marked word -- for example size 2 with len 1, which writes no
element at all -- the control plane still accepts a later load of the
whole word from another expression.  That load reads stale bytes from
the struct nft_regs stack slot in nft_do_chain(), which is not
zero-initialised.

Zero the span that the control plane marks as initialised before the
conversion, but only when the source and destination registers differ.
nft_reg_overlap() allows an in-place conversion (sreg == dreg), and the
source is already initialised in that case; zeroing it would corrupt
the value.

This preserves multi-register support and does not reject any rule, so
old nftables versions that generate len != size continue to load.  It
only removes the dependency on some other initialisation of the
register file.  Builds with CONFIG_INIT_STACK_ALL_ZERO mask the leak,
but nft_byteorder must not rely on that.

Fixes: 14fb07130c7d ("netfilter: nf_tables: allow loads only when register is initialized")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Abdifatah Suruur <suruurism@gmail.com>
---

diff --git a/net/netfilter/nft_byteorder.c b/net/netfilter/nft_byteorder.c
--- a/net/netfilter/nft_byteorder.c
+++ b/net/netfilter/nft_byteorder.c
@@ -33,6 +33,17 @@ void nft_byteorder_eval(const struct nft_expr *expr,
 	u16 *s16, *d16;
 	unsigned int i;
 
+	/*
+	 * nft_parse_register_store() marks DIV_ROUND_UP(priv->len, 4)
+	 * words as initialised, but this function only writes whole
+	 * len/size elements.  Zero the marked span so that a later load
+	 * cannot read uninitialised stack data.  Do not touch it when
+	 * source and destination are the same register: the source is
+	 * already initialised and zeroing it would corrupt the value.
+	 */
+	if (priv->sreg != priv->dreg)
+		memset(dst, 0, DIV_ROUND_UP(priv->len, 4) * sizeof(u32));
+
 	s16 = (void *)src;
 	d16 = (void *)dst;
 
-- 
2.53.0