From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , stable@vger.kernel.org, "ast@kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Borkmann" , syzbot+93c4904c5c70348a6890@syzkaller.appspotmail.com, Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann Subject: [PATCH 4.9 62/66] bpf: arsh is not supported in 32 bit alu thus reject it Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 13:57:26 +0100 Message-Id: <20180129123843.167617307@linuxfoundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20180129123839.842860149@linuxfoundation.org> References: <20180129123839.842860149@linuxfoundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 4.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Daniel Borkmann [ upstream commit 7891a87efc7116590eaba57acc3c422487802c6f ] The following snippet was throwing an 'unknown opcode cc' warning in BPF interpreter: 0: (18) r0 = 0x0 2: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = r0 3: (cc) (u32) r0 s>>= (u32) r0 4: (95) exit Although a number of JITs do support BPF_ALU | BPF_ARSH | BPF_{K,X} generation, not all of them do and interpreter does neither. We can leave existing ones and implement it later in bpf-next for the remaining ones, but reject this properly in verifier for the time being. Fixes: 17a5267067f3 ("bpf: verifier (add verifier core)") Reported-by: syzbot+93c4904c5c70348a6890@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -1843,6 +1843,11 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verif return -EINVAL; } + if (opcode == BPF_ARSH && BPF_CLASS(insn->code) != BPF_ALU64) { + verbose("BPF_ARSH not supported for 32 bit ALU\n"); + return -EINVAL; + } + if ((opcode == BPF_LSH || opcode == BPF_RSH || opcode == BPF_ARSH) && BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_K) { int size = BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64 ? 64 : 32;