[PATCH 5.4 0/8] 5.4.116-rc1 review

[PATCH 5.4 0/8] 5.4.116-rc1 review

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.4.116 release.
There are 8 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
let me know.

Responses should be made by Sun, 02 May 2021 14:19:04 +0000.
Anything received after that time might be too late.

The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
	https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.4.116-rc1.gz
or in the git tree and branch at:
	git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-5.4.y
and the diffstat can be found below.

thanks,

greg k-h

-------------
Pseudo-Shortlog of commits:

Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
    Linux 5.4.116-rc1

Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
    bpf: Update selftests to reflect new error states

Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
    bpf: Tighten speculative pointer arithmetic mask

Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
    bpf: Move sanitize_val_alu out of op switch

Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
    bpf: Refactor and streamline bounds check into helper

Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
    bpf: Improve verifier error messages for users

Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
    bpf: Rework ptr_limit into alu_limit and add common error path

Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
    bpf: Ensure off_reg has no mixed signed bounds for all types

Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
    bpf: Move off_reg into sanitize_ptr_alu


-------------

Diffstat:

 Makefile                                           |   4 +-
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c                              | 233 ++++++++++++++-------
 .../selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_deduction.c      |  21 +-
 .../bpf/verifier/bounds_mix_sign_unsign.c          |  13 --
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c      |   2 +-
 .../selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c       |   6 +-
 6 files changed, 175 insertions(+), 104 deletions(-)

[PATCH 5.4 1/8] bpf: Move off_reg into sanitize_ptr_alu

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

commit 6f55b2f2a1178856c19bbce2f71449926e731914 upstream.

Small refactor to drag off_reg into sanitize_ptr_alu(), so we later on can
use off_reg for generalizing some of the checks for all pointer types.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Reviewed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c |    9 +++++----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -4336,11 +4336,12 @@ static int sanitize_val_alu(struct bpf_v
 static int sanitize_ptr_alu(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 			    struct bpf_insn *insn,
 			    const struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg,
-			    struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg,
-			    bool off_is_neg)
+			    const struct bpf_reg_state *off_reg,
+			    struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg)
 {
 	struct bpf_verifier_state *vstate = env->cur_state;
 	struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux = cur_aux(env);
+	bool off_is_neg = off_reg->smin_value < 0;
 	bool ptr_is_dst_reg = ptr_reg == dst_reg;
 	u8 opcode = BPF_OP(insn->code);
 	u32 alu_state, alu_limit;
@@ -4474,7 +4475,7 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struc
 
 	switch (opcode) {
 	case BPF_ADD:
-		ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, dst_reg, smin_val < 0);
+		ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, off_reg, dst_reg);
 		if (ret < 0) {
 			verbose(env, "R%d tried to add from different maps, paths, or prohibited types\n", dst);
 			return ret;
@@ -4529,7 +4530,7 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struc
 		}
 		break;
 	case BPF_SUB:
-		ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, dst_reg, smin_val < 0);
+		ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, off_reg, dst_reg);
 		if (ret < 0) {
 			verbose(env, "R%d tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types\n", dst);
 			return ret;

[PATCH 5.4 2/8] bpf: Ensure off_reg has no mixed signed bounds for all types

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

commit 24c109bb1537c12c02aeed2d51a347b4d6a9b76e upstream.

The mixed signed bounds check really belongs into retrieve_ptr_limit()
instead of outside of it in adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(). The reason is
that this check is not tied to PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE only, but to all pointer
types that we handle in retrieve_ptr_limit() and given errors from the latter
propagate back to adjust_ptr_min_max_vals() and lead to rejection of the
program, it's a better place to reside to avoid anything slipping through
for future types. The reason why we must reject such off_reg is that we
otherwise would not be able to derive a mask, see details in 9d7eceede769
("bpf: restrict unknown scalars of mixed signed bounds for unprivileged").

Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Reviewed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
[fllinden@amazon.com: backport to 5.4]
Signed-off-by: Frank van der Linden <fllinden@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c |   19 +++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -4264,12 +4264,18 @@ static struct bpf_insn_aux_data *cur_aux
 }
 
 static int retrieve_ptr_limit(const struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg,
-			      u32 *ptr_limit, u8 opcode, bool off_is_neg)
+			      const struct bpf_reg_state *off_reg,
+			      u32 *ptr_limit, u8 opcode)
 {
+	bool off_is_neg = off_reg->smin_value < 0;
 	bool mask_to_left = (opcode == BPF_ADD &&  off_is_neg) ||
 			    (opcode == BPF_SUB && !off_is_neg);
 	u32 off, max;
 
+	if (!tnum_is_const(off_reg->var_off) &&
+	    (off_reg->smin_value < 0) != (off_reg->smax_value < 0))
+		return -EACCES;
+
 	switch (ptr_reg->type) {
 	case PTR_TO_STACK:
 		/* Offset 0 is out-of-bounds, but acceptable start for the
@@ -4363,7 +4369,7 @@ static int sanitize_ptr_alu(struct bpf_v
 	alu_state |= ptr_is_dst_reg ?
 		     BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_SRC : BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_DST;
 
-	err = retrieve_ptr_limit(ptr_reg, &alu_limit, opcode, off_is_neg);
+	err = retrieve_ptr_limit(ptr_reg, off_reg, &alu_limit, opcode);
 	if (err < 0)
 		return err;
 
@@ -4408,8 +4414,8 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struc
 	    smin_ptr = ptr_reg->smin_value, smax_ptr = ptr_reg->smax_value;
 	u64 umin_val = off_reg->umin_value, umax_val = off_reg->umax_value,
 	    umin_ptr = ptr_reg->umin_value, umax_ptr = ptr_reg->umax_value;
-	u32 dst = insn->dst_reg, src = insn->src_reg;
 	u8 opcode = BPF_OP(insn->code);
+	u32 dst = insn->dst_reg;
 	int ret;
 
 	dst_reg = &regs[dst];
@@ -4452,13 +4458,6 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struc
 		verbose(env, "R%d pointer arithmetic on %s prohibited\n",
 			dst, reg_type_str[ptr_reg->type]);
 		return -EACCES;
-	case PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE:
-		if (!env->allow_ptr_leaks && !known && (smin_val < 0) != (smax_val < 0)) {
-			verbose(env, "R%d has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds, pointer arithmetic with it prohibited for !root\n",
-				off_reg == dst_reg ? dst : src);
-			return -EACCES;
-		}
-		/* fall-through */
 	default:
 		break;
 	}

[PATCH 5.4 3/8] bpf: Rework ptr_limit into alu_limit and add common error path

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

commit b658bbb844e28f1862867f37e8ca11a8e2aa94a3 upstream.

Small refactor with no semantic changes in order to consolidate the max
ptr_limit boundary check.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Reviewed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c |   21 +++++++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -4265,12 +4265,12 @@ static struct bpf_insn_aux_data *cur_aux
 
 static int retrieve_ptr_limit(const struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg,
 			      const struct bpf_reg_state *off_reg,
-			      u32 *ptr_limit, u8 opcode)
+			      u32 *alu_limit, u8 opcode)
 {
 	bool off_is_neg = off_reg->smin_value < 0;
 	bool mask_to_left = (opcode == BPF_ADD &&  off_is_neg) ||
 			    (opcode == BPF_SUB && !off_is_neg);
-	u32 off, max;
+	u32 off, max = 0, ptr_limit = 0;
 
 	if (!tnum_is_const(off_reg->var_off) &&
 	    (off_reg->smin_value < 0) != (off_reg->smax_value < 0))
@@ -4287,22 +4287,27 @@ static int retrieve_ptr_limit(const stru
 		 */
 		off = ptr_reg->off + ptr_reg->var_off.value;
 		if (mask_to_left)
-			*ptr_limit = MAX_BPF_STACK + off;
+			ptr_limit = MAX_BPF_STACK + off;
 		else
-			*ptr_limit = -off - 1;
-		return *ptr_limit >= max ? -ERANGE : 0;
+			ptr_limit = -off - 1;
+		break;
 	case PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE:
 		max = ptr_reg->map_ptr->value_size;
 		if (mask_to_left) {
-			*ptr_limit = ptr_reg->umax_value + ptr_reg->off;
+			ptr_limit = ptr_reg->umax_value + ptr_reg->off;
 		} else {
 			off = ptr_reg->smin_value + ptr_reg->off;
-			*ptr_limit = ptr_reg->map_ptr->value_size - off - 1;
+			ptr_limit = ptr_reg->map_ptr->value_size - off - 1;
 		}
-		return *ptr_limit >= max ? -ERANGE : 0;
+		break;
 	default:
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
+
+	if (ptr_limit >= max)
+		return -ERANGE;
+	*alu_limit = ptr_limit;
+	return 0;
 }
 
 static bool can_skip_alu_sanitation(const struct bpf_verifier_env *env,

[PATCH 5.4 4/8] bpf: Improve verifier error messages for users

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

commit a6aaece00a57fa6f22575364b3903dfbccf5345d upstream.

Consolidate all error handling and provide more user-friendly error messages
from sanitize_ptr_alu() and sanitize_val_alu().

Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Reviewed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
[fllinden@amazon.com: backport to 5.4]
Signed-off-by: Frank van der Linden <fllinden@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c |   84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -4263,6 +4263,14 @@ static struct bpf_insn_aux_data *cur_aux
 	return &env->insn_aux_data[env->insn_idx];
 }
 
+enum {
+	REASON_BOUNDS	= -1,
+	REASON_TYPE	= -2,
+	REASON_PATHS	= -3,
+	REASON_LIMIT	= -4,
+	REASON_STACK	= -5,
+};
+
 static int retrieve_ptr_limit(const struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg,
 			      const struct bpf_reg_state *off_reg,
 			      u32 *alu_limit, u8 opcode)
@@ -4274,7 +4282,7 @@ static int retrieve_ptr_limit(const stru
 
 	if (!tnum_is_const(off_reg->var_off) &&
 	    (off_reg->smin_value < 0) != (off_reg->smax_value < 0))
-		return -EACCES;
+		return REASON_BOUNDS;
 
 	switch (ptr_reg->type) {
 	case PTR_TO_STACK:
@@ -4301,11 +4309,11 @@ static int retrieve_ptr_limit(const stru
 		}
 		break;
 	default:
-		return -EINVAL;
+		return REASON_TYPE;
 	}
 
 	if (ptr_limit >= max)
-		return -ERANGE;
+		return REASON_LIMIT;
 	*alu_limit = ptr_limit;
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -4325,7 +4333,7 @@ static int update_alu_sanitation_state(s
 	if (aux->alu_state &&
 	    (aux->alu_state != alu_state ||
 	     aux->alu_limit != alu_limit))
-		return -EACCES;
+		return REASON_PATHS;
 
 	/* Corresponding fixup done in fixup_bpf_calls(). */
 	aux->alu_state = alu_state;
@@ -4398,7 +4406,46 @@ do_sim:
 	ret = push_stack(env, env->insn_idx + 1, env->insn_idx, true);
 	if (!ptr_is_dst_reg && ret)
 		*dst_reg = tmp;
-	return !ret ? -EFAULT : 0;
+	return !ret ? REASON_STACK : 0;
+}
+
+static int sanitize_err(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
+			const struct bpf_insn *insn, int reason,
+			const struct bpf_reg_state *off_reg,
+			const struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg)
+{
+	static const char *err = "pointer arithmetic with it prohibited for !root";
+	const char *op = BPF_OP(insn->code) == BPF_ADD ? "add" : "sub";
+	u32 dst = insn->dst_reg, src = insn->src_reg;
+
+	switch (reason) {
+	case REASON_BOUNDS:
+		verbose(env, "R%d has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds, %s\n",
+			off_reg == dst_reg ? dst : src, err);
+		break;
+	case REASON_TYPE:
+		verbose(env, "R%d has pointer with unsupported alu operation, %s\n",
+			off_reg == dst_reg ? src : dst, err);
+		break;
+	case REASON_PATHS:
+		verbose(env, "R%d tried to %s from different maps, paths or scalars, %s\n",
+			dst, op, err);
+		break;
+	case REASON_LIMIT:
+		verbose(env, "R%d tried to %s beyond pointer bounds, %s\n",
+			dst, op, err);
+		break;
+	case REASON_STACK:
+		verbose(env, "R%d could not be pushed for speculative verification, %s\n",
+			dst, err);
+		break;
+	default:
+		verbose(env, "verifier internal error: unknown reason (%d)\n",
+			reason);
+		break;
+	}
+
+	return -EACCES;
 }
 
 /* Handles arithmetic on a pointer and a scalar: computes new min/max and var_off.
@@ -4480,10 +4527,9 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struc
 	switch (opcode) {
 	case BPF_ADD:
 		ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, off_reg, dst_reg);
-		if (ret < 0) {
-			verbose(env, "R%d tried to add from different maps, paths, or prohibited types\n", dst);
-			return ret;
-		}
+		if (ret < 0)
+			return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret, off_reg, dst_reg);
+
 		/* We can take a fixed offset as long as it doesn't overflow
 		 * the s32 'off' field
 		 */
@@ -4535,10 +4581,9 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struc
 		break;
 	case BPF_SUB:
 		ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, off_reg, dst_reg);
-		if (ret < 0) {
-			verbose(env, "R%d tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types\n", dst);
-			return ret;
-		}
+		if (ret < 0)
+			return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret, off_reg, dst_reg);
+
 		if (dst_reg == off_reg) {
 			/* scalar -= pointer.  Creates an unknown scalar */
 			verbose(env, "R%d tried to subtract pointer from scalar\n",
@@ -4655,7 +4700,6 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(st
 	s64 smin_val, smax_val;
 	u64 umin_val, umax_val;
 	u64 insn_bitness = (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64) ? 64 : 32;
-	u32 dst = insn->dst_reg;
 	int ret;
 
 	if (insn_bitness == 32) {
@@ -4692,10 +4736,8 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(st
 	switch (opcode) {
 	case BPF_ADD:
 		ret = sanitize_val_alu(env, insn);
-		if (ret < 0) {
-			verbose(env, "R%d tried to add from different pointers or scalars\n", dst);
-			return ret;
-		}
+		if (ret < 0)
+			return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret, NULL, NULL);
 		if (signed_add_overflows(dst_reg->smin_value, smin_val) ||
 		    signed_add_overflows(dst_reg->smax_value, smax_val)) {
 			dst_reg->smin_value = S64_MIN;
@@ -4716,10 +4758,8 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(st
 		break;
 	case BPF_SUB:
 		ret = sanitize_val_alu(env, insn);
-		if (ret < 0) {
-			verbose(env, "R%d tried to sub from different pointers or scalars\n", dst);
-			return ret;
-		}
+		if (ret < 0)
+			return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret, NULL, NULL);
 		if (signed_sub_overflows(dst_reg->smin_value, smax_val) ||
 		    signed_sub_overflows(dst_reg->smax_value, smin_val)) {
 			/* Overflow possible, we know nothing */

[PATCH 5.4 5/8] bpf: Refactor and streamline bounds check into helper

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

commit 073815b756c51ba9d8384d924c5d1c03ca3d1ae4 upstream.

Move the bounds check in adjust_ptr_min_max_vals() into a small helper named
sanitize_check_bounds() in order to simplify the former a bit.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Reviewed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
[fllinden@amazon.com: backport to 5.4]
Signed-off-by: Frank van der Linden <fllinden@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c |   54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -4448,6 +4448,41 @@ static int sanitize_err(struct bpf_verif
 	return -EACCES;
 }
 
+static int sanitize_check_bounds(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
+				 const struct bpf_insn *insn,
+				 const struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg)
+{
+	u32 dst = insn->dst_reg;
+
+	/* For unprivileged we require that resulting offset must be in bounds
+	 * in order to be able to sanitize access later on.
+	 */
+	if (env->allow_ptr_leaks)
+		return 0;
+
+	switch (dst_reg->type) {
+	case PTR_TO_STACK:
+		if (check_stack_access(env, dst_reg, dst_reg->off +
+				       dst_reg->var_off.value, 1)) {
+			verbose(env, "R%d stack pointer arithmetic goes out of range, "
+				"prohibited for !root\n", dst);
+			return -EACCES;
+		}
+		break;
+	case PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE:
+		if (check_map_access(env, dst, dst_reg->off, 1, false)) {
+			verbose(env, "R%d pointer arithmetic of map value goes out of range, "
+				"prohibited for !root\n", dst);
+			return -EACCES;
+		}
+		break;
+	default:
+		break;
+	}
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
 /* Handles arithmetic on a pointer and a scalar: computes new min/max and var_off.
  * Caller should also handle BPF_MOV case separately.
  * If we return -EACCES, caller may want to try again treating pointer as a
@@ -4664,23 +4699,8 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struc
 	__reg_deduce_bounds(dst_reg);
 	__reg_bound_offset(dst_reg);
 
-	/* For unprivileged we require that resulting offset must be in bounds
-	 * in order to be able to sanitize access later on.
-	 */
-	if (!env->allow_ptr_leaks) {
-		if (dst_reg->type == PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE &&
-		    check_map_access(env, dst, dst_reg->off, 1, false)) {
-			verbose(env, "R%d pointer arithmetic of map value goes out of range, "
-				"prohibited for !root\n", dst);
-			return -EACCES;
-		} else if (dst_reg->type == PTR_TO_STACK &&
-			   check_stack_access(env, dst_reg, dst_reg->off +
-					      dst_reg->var_off.value, 1)) {
-			verbose(env, "R%d stack pointer arithmetic goes out of range, "
-				"prohibited for !root\n", dst);
-			return -EACCES;
-		}
-	}
+	if (sanitize_check_bounds(env, insn, dst_reg) < 0)
+		return -EACCES;
 
 	return 0;
 }

[PATCH 5.4 6/8] bpf: Move sanitize_val_alu out of op switch

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

commit f528819334881fd622fdadeddb3f7edaed8b7c9b upstream.

Add a small sanitize_needed() helper function and move sanitize_val_alu()
out of the main opcode switch. In upcoming work, we'll move sanitize_ptr_alu()
as well out of its opcode switch so this helps to streamline both.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Reviewed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
[fllinden@amazon.com: backported to 5.4]
Signed-off-by: Frank van der Linden <fllinden@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c |   15 ++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -4352,6 +4352,11 @@ static int sanitize_val_alu(struct bpf_v
 	return update_alu_sanitation_state(aux, BPF_ALU_NON_POINTER, 0);
 }
 
+static bool sanitize_needed(u8 opcode)
+{
+	return opcode == BPF_ADD || opcode == BPF_SUB;
+}
+
 static int sanitize_ptr_alu(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 			    struct bpf_insn *insn,
 			    const struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg,
@@ -4753,11 +4758,14 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(st
 		return 0;
 	}
 
-	switch (opcode) {
-	case BPF_ADD:
+	if (sanitize_needed(opcode)) {
 		ret = sanitize_val_alu(env, insn);
 		if (ret < 0)
 			return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret, NULL, NULL);
+	}
+
+	switch (opcode) {
+	case BPF_ADD:
 		if (signed_add_overflows(dst_reg->smin_value, smin_val) ||
 		    signed_add_overflows(dst_reg->smax_value, smax_val)) {
 			dst_reg->smin_value = S64_MIN;
@@ -4777,9 +4785,6 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(st
 		dst_reg->var_off = tnum_add(dst_reg->var_off, src_reg.var_off);
 		break;
 	case BPF_SUB:
-		ret = sanitize_val_alu(env, insn);
-		if (ret < 0)
-			return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret, NULL, NULL);
 		if (signed_sub_overflows(dst_reg->smin_value, smax_val) ||
 		    signed_sub_overflows(dst_reg->smax_value, smin_val)) {
 			/* Overflow possible, we know nothing */

[PATCH 5.4 7/8] bpf: Tighten speculative pointer arithmetic mask

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

commit 7fedb63a8307dda0ec3b8969a3b233a1dd7ea8e0 upstream.

This work tightens the offset mask we use for unprivileged pointer arithmetic
in order to mitigate a corner case reported by Piotr and Benedict where in
the speculative domain it is possible to advance, for example, the map value
pointer by up to value_size-1 out-of-bounds in order to leak kernel memory
via side-channel to user space.

Before this change, the computed ptr_limit for retrieve_ptr_limit() helper
represents largest valid distance when moving pointer to the right or left
which is then fed as aux->alu_limit to generate masking instructions against
the offset register. After the change, the derived aux->alu_limit represents
the largest potential value of the offset register which we mask against which
is just a narrower subset of the former limit.

For minimal complexity, we call sanitize_ptr_alu() from 2 observation points
in adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(), that is, before and after the simulated alu
operation. In the first step, we retieve the alu_state and alu_limit before
the operation as well as we branch-off a verifier path and push it to the
verification stack as we did before which checks the dst_reg under truncation,
in other words, when the speculative domain would attempt to move the pointer
out-of-bounds.

In the second step, we retrieve the new alu_limit and calculate the absolute
distance between both. Moreover, we commit the alu_state and final alu_limit
via update_alu_sanitation_state() to the env's instruction aux data, and bail
out from there if there is a mismatch due to coming from different verification
paths with different states.

Reported-by: Piotr Krysiuk <piotras@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Benedict Schlueter <benedict.schlueter@rub.de>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Reviewed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Tested-by: Benedict Schlueter <benedict.schlueter@rub.de>
[fllinden@amazon.com: backported to 5.4]
Signed-off-by: Frank van der Linden <fllinden@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c |   73 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -4278,7 +4278,7 @@ static int retrieve_ptr_limit(const stru
 	bool off_is_neg = off_reg->smin_value < 0;
 	bool mask_to_left = (opcode == BPF_ADD &&  off_is_neg) ||
 			    (opcode == BPF_SUB && !off_is_neg);
-	u32 off, max = 0, ptr_limit = 0;
+	u32 max = 0, ptr_limit = 0;
 
 	if (!tnum_is_const(off_reg->var_off) &&
 	    (off_reg->smin_value < 0) != (off_reg->smax_value < 0))
@@ -4287,26 +4287,18 @@ static int retrieve_ptr_limit(const stru
 	switch (ptr_reg->type) {
 	case PTR_TO_STACK:
 		/* Offset 0 is out-of-bounds, but acceptable start for the
-		 * left direction, see BPF_REG_FP.
+		 * left direction, see BPF_REG_FP. Also, unknown scalar
+		 * offset where we would need to deal with min/max bounds is
+		 * currently prohibited for unprivileged.
 		 */
 		max = MAX_BPF_STACK + mask_to_left;
-		/* Indirect variable offset stack access is prohibited in
-		 * unprivileged mode so it's not handled here.
-		 */
-		off = ptr_reg->off + ptr_reg->var_off.value;
-		if (mask_to_left)
-			ptr_limit = MAX_BPF_STACK + off;
-		else
-			ptr_limit = -off - 1;
+		ptr_limit = -(ptr_reg->var_off.value + ptr_reg->off);
 		break;
 	case PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE:
 		max = ptr_reg->map_ptr->value_size;
-		if (mask_to_left) {
-			ptr_limit = ptr_reg->umax_value + ptr_reg->off;
-		} else {
-			off = ptr_reg->smin_value + ptr_reg->off;
-			ptr_limit = ptr_reg->map_ptr->value_size - off - 1;
-		}
+		ptr_limit = (mask_to_left ?
+			     ptr_reg->smin_value :
+			     ptr_reg->umax_value) + ptr_reg->off;
 		break;
 	default:
 		return REASON_TYPE;
@@ -4361,10 +4353,12 @@ static int sanitize_ptr_alu(struct bpf_v
 			    struct bpf_insn *insn,
 			    const struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg,
 			    const struct bpf_reg_state *off_reg,
-			    struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg)
+			    struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg,
+			    struct bpf_insn_aux_data *tmp_aux,
+			    const bool commit_window)
 {
+	struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux = commit_window ? cur_aux(env) : tmp_aux;
 	struct bpf_verifier_state *vstate = env->cur_state;
-	struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux = cur_aux(env);
 	bool off_is_neg = off_reg->smin_value < 0;
 	bool ptr_is_dst_reg = ptr_reg == dst_reg;
 	u8 opcode = BPF_OP(insn->code);
@@ -4383,18 +4377,33 @@ static int sanitize_ptr_alu(struct bpf_v
 	if (vstate->speculative)
 		goto do_sim;
 
-	alu_state  = off_is_neg ? BPF_ALU_NEG_VALUE : 0;
-	alu_state |= ptr_is_dst_reg ?
-		     BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_SRC : BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_DST;
-
 	err = retrieve_ptr_limit(ptr_reg, off_reg, &alu_limit, opcode);
 	if (err < 0)
 		return err;
 
+	if (commit_window) {
+		/* In commit phase we narrow the masking window based on
+		 * the observed pointer move after the simulated operation.
+		 */
+		alu_state = tmp_aux->alu_state;
+		alu_limit = abs(tmp_aux->alu_limit - alu_limit);
+	} else {
+		alu_state  = off_is_neg ? BPF_ALU_NEG_VALUE : 0;
+		alu_state |= ptr_is_dst_reg ?
+			     BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_SRC : BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_DST;
+	}
+
 	err = update_alu_sanitation_state(aux, alu_state, alu_limit);
 	if (err < 0)
 		return err;
 do_sim:
+	/* If we're in commit phase, we're done here given we already
+	 * pushed the truncated dst_reg into the speculative verification
+	 * stack.
+	 */
+	if (commit_window)
+		return 0;
+
 	/* Simulate and find potential out-of-bounds access under
 	 * speculative execution from truncation as a result of
 	 * masking when off was not within expected range. If off
@@ -4506,6 +4515,7 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struc
 	    smin_ptr = ptr_reg->smin_value, smax_ptr = ptr_reg->smax_value;
 	u64 umin_val = off_reg->umin_value, umax_val = off_reg->umax_value,
 	    umin_ptr = ptr_reg->umin_value, umax_ptr = ptr_reg->umax_value;
+	struct bpf_insn_aux_data tmp_aux = {};
 	u8 opcode = BPF_OP(insn->code);
 	u32 dst = insn->dst_reg;
 	int ret;
@@ -4564,12 +4574,15 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struc
 	    !check_reg_sane_offset(env, ptr_reg, ptr_reg->type))
 		return -EINVAL;
 
-	switch (opcode) {
-	case BPF_ADD:
-		ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, off_reg, dst_reg);
+	if (sanitize_needed(opcode)) {
+		ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, off_reg, dst_reg,
+				       &tmp_aux, false);
 		if (ret < 0)
 			return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret, off_reg, dst_reg);
+	}
 
+	switch (opcode) {
+	case BPF_ADD:
 		/* We can take a fixed offset as long as it doesn't overflow
 		 * the s32 'off' field
 		 */
@@ -4620,10 +4633,6 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struc
 		}
 		break;
 	case BPF_SUB:
-		ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, off_reg, dst_reg);
-		if (ret < 0)
-			return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret, off_reg, dst_reg);
-
 		if (dst_reg == off_reg) {
 			/* scalar -= pointer.  Creates an unknown scalar */
 			verbose(env, "R%d tried to subtract pointer from scalar\n",
@@ -4706,6 +4715,12 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struc
 
 	if (sanitize_check_bounds(env, insn, dst_reg) < 0)
 		return -EACCES;
+	if (sanitize_needed(opcode)) {
+		ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, dst_reg, off_reg, dst_reg,
+				       &tmp_aux, true);
+		if (ret < 0)
+			return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret, off_reg, dst_reg);
+	}
 
 	return 0;
 }

[PATCH 5.4 8/8] bpf: Update selftests to reflect new error states

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

commit d7a5091351756d0ae8e63134313c455624e36a13 upstream.

Update various selftest error messages:

 * The 'Rx tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types'
   is reworked into more specific/differentiated error messages for better
   guidance.

 * The change into 'value -4294967168 makes map_value pointer be out of
   bounds' is due to moving the mixed bounds check into the speculation
   handling and thus occuring slightly later than above mentioned sanity
   check.

 * The change into 'math between map_value pointer and register with
   unbounded min value' is similarly due to register sanity check coming
   before the mixed bounds check.

 * The case of 'map access: known scalar += value_ptr from different maps'
   now loads fine given masks are the same from the different paths (despite
   max map value size being different).

Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Reviewed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
[fllinden@amazon - skip bounds.c test mods, they won't change error msg on 5.4]
Signed-off-by: Frank van der Linden <fllinden@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_deduction.c       |   21 +++++-----
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_mix_sign_unsign.c |   13 ------
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c                 |    2 
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c        |    6 --
 4 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)

--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_deduction.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_deduction.c
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
 		BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
 		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
 	},
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R0 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
 	.errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
 		BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0),
 		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
 	},
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
 	.result_unpriv = REJECT,
 	.result = ACCEPT,
 	.retval = 1,
@@ -34,22 +34,23 @@
 		BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
 		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
 	},
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R0 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
 	.errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
 	"check deducing bounds from const, 4",
 	.insns = {
+		BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1),
 		BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
 		BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSLE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
 		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
 		BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
 		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
-		BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0),
+		BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_0),
 		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
 	},
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+	.errstr_unpriv = "R6 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
 	.result_unpriv = REJECT,
 	.result = ACCEPT,
 },
@@ -61,7 +62,7 @@
 		BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
 		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
 	},
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R0 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
 	.errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
@@ -74,7 +75,7 @@
 		BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
 		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
 	},
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R0 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
 	.errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
@@ -88,7 +89,7 @@
 			    offsetof(struct __sk_buff, mark)),
 		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
 	},
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
 	.errstr = "dereference of modified ctx ptr",
 	.result = REJECT,
 	.flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
@@ -103,7 +104,7 @@
 			    offsetof(struct __sk_buff, mark)),
 		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
 	},
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 tried to add from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
 	.errstr = "dereference of modified ctx ptr",
 	.result = REJECT,
 	.flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
@@ -116,7 +117,7 @@
 		BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
 		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
 	},
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R0 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
 	.errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_mix_sign_unsign.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_mix_sign_unsign.c
@@ -19,7 +19,6 @@
 	},
 	.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
 	.errstr = "unbounded min value",
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
@@ -43,7 +42,6 @@
 	},
 	.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
 	.errstr = "unbounded min value",
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
@@ -69,7 +67,6 @@
 	},
 	.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
 	.errstr = "unbounded min value",
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R8 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
@@ -94,7 +91,6 @@
 	},
 	.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
 	.errstr = "unbounded min value",
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R8 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
@@ -141,7 +137,6 @@
 	},
 	.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
 	.errstr = "unbounded min value",
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
@@ -210,7 +205,6 @@
 	},
 	.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
 	.errstr = "unbounded min value",
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
@@ -260,7 +254,6 @@
 	},
 	.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
 	.errstr = "unbounded min value",
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
@@ -287,7 +280,6 @@
 	},
 	.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
 	.errstr = "unbounded min value",
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
@@ -313,7 +305,6 @@
 	},
 	.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
 	.errstr = "unbounded min value",
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
@@ -342,7 +333,6 @@
 	},
 	.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
 	.errstr = "unbounded min value",
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R7 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
@@ -372,7 +362,6 @@
 	},
 	.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 4 },
 	.errstr = "unbounded min value",
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
@@ -400,7 +389,5 @@
 	},
 	.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
 	.errstr = "unbounded min value",
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
 	.result = REJECT,
-	.result_unpriv = REJECT,
 },
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c
@@ -503,7 +503,7 @@
 	BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, -8),
 	BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
 	},
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 tried to add from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 stack pointer arithmetic goes out of range",
 	.result_unpriv = REJECT,
 	.result = ACCEPT,
 },
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c
@@ -21,8 +21,6 @@
 	.fixup_map_hash_16b = { 5 },
 	.fixup_map_array_48b = { 8 },
 	.result = ACCEPT,
-	.result_unpriv = REJECT,
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 tried to add from different maps",
 	.retval = 1,
 },
 {
@@ -122,7 +120,7 @@
 	.fixup_map_array_48b = { 1 },
 	.result = ACCEPT,
 	.result_unpriv = REJECT,
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R2 tried to add from different pointers or scalars",
+	.errstr_unpriv = "R2 tried to add from different maps, paths or scalars",
 	.retval = 0,
 },
 {
@@ -169,7 +167,7 @@
 	.fixup_map_array_48b = { 1 },
 	.result = ACCEPT,
 	.result_unpriv = REJECT,
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R2 tried to add from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+	.errstr_unpriv = "R2 tried to add from different maps, paths or scalars",
 	.retval = 0,
 },
 {

Re: [PATCH 5.4 0/8] 5.4.116-rc1 review

[Jon Hunter]

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 16:20:14 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.4.116 release.
> There are 8 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.
> 
> Responses should be made by Sun, 02 May 2021 14:19:04 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
> 
> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> 	https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.4.116-rc1.gz
> or in the git tree and branch at:
> 	git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-5.4.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

All tests passing for Tegra ...

Test results for stable-v5.4:
    12 builds:	12 pass, 0 fail
    26 boots:	26 pass, 0 fail
    59 tests:	59 pass, 0 fail

Linux version:	5.4.116-rc1-g4f9e765c943d
Boards tested:	tegra124-jetson-tk1, tegra186-p2771-0000,
                tegra194-p2972-0000, tegra20-ventana,
                tegra210-p2371-2180, tegra210-p3450-0000,
                tegra30-cardhu-a04

Tested-by: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>

Jon

Re: [PATCH 5.4 0/8] 5.4.116-rc1 review

[Sudip Mukherjee]

Hi Greg,

On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 04:20:14PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.4.116 release.
> There are 8 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.
> 
> Responses should be made by Sun, 02 May 2021 14:19:04 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.

Build test:
mips (gcc version 11.1.1 20210430): 65 configs -> no new failure
arm (gcc version 11.1.1 20210430): 107 configs -> no new failure
x86_64 (gcc version 10.2.1 20210110): 2 configs -> no failure

Boot test:
x86_64: Booted on my test laptop. No regression.
x86_64: Booted on qemu. No regression.
arm: Booted on rpi3b. No regression.

Tested-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip.mukherjee@codethink.co.uk>

--
Regards
Sudip

Re: [PATCH 5.4 0/8] 5.4.116-rc1 review

[Florian Fainelli]

On 4/30/2021 7:20 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.4.116 release.
> There are 8 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.
> 
> Responses should be made by Sun, 02 May 2021 14:19:04 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
> 
> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> 	https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.4.116-rc1.gz
> or in the git tree and branch at:
> 	git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-5.4.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

On ARCH_BRCMSTB, using 32-bit and 64-bit ARM kernels:

Tested-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
-- 
Florian

Re: [PATCH 5.4 0/8] 5.4.116-rc1 review

[Naresh Kamboju]

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 at 19:50, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.4.116 release.
> There are 8 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.
>
> Responses should be made by Sun, 02 May 2021 14:19:04 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>
> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
>         https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.4.116-rc1.gz
> or in the git tree and branch at:
>         git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-5.4.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

Results from Linaro’s test farm.
No regressions on arm64, arm, x86_64, and i386.

Tested-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@linaro.org>

## Build
* kernel: 5.4.116-rc1
* git: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
* git branch: linux-5.4.y
* git commit: 4f9e765c943d89435e58094c616a044b84fb55ef
* git describe: v5.4.115-9-g4f9e765c943d
* test details:
https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-5.4.y/build/v5.4.115-9-g4f9e765c943d

## No regressions (compared to v5.4.115)

## No fixes (compared to v5.4.115)

## Test result summary
 total: 71664, pass: 57763, fail: 2316, skip: 11326, xfail: 259,

## Build Summary
* arc: 10 total, 10 passed, 0 failed
* arm: 192 total, 192 passed, 0 failed
* arm64: 26 total, 26 passed, 0 failed
* dragonboard-410c: 1 total, 1 passed, 0 failed
* hi6220-hikey: 1 total, 1 passed, 0 failed
* i386: 15 total, 15 passed, 0 failed
* juno-r2: 1 total, 1 passed, 0 failed
* mips: 45 total, 45 passed, 0 failed
* parisc: 9 total, 9 passed, 0 failed
* powerpc: 27 total, 27 passed, 0 failed
* riscv: 21 total, 21 passed, 0 failed
* s390: 9 total, 9 passed, 0 failed
* sh: 18 total, 18 passed, 0 failed
* sparc: 9 total, 9 passed, 0 failed
* x15: 1 total, 1 passed, 0 failed
* x86: 1 total, 1 passed, 0 failed
* x86_64: 26 total, 25 passed, 1 failed

## Test suites summary
* fwts
* igt-gpu-tools
* install-android-platform-tools-r2600
* kselftest-
* kselftest-android
* kselftest-bpf
* kselftest-breakpoints
* kselftest-capabilities
* kselftest-cgroup
* kselftest-clone3
* kselftest-core
* kselftest-cpu-hotplug
* kselftest-cpufreq
* kselftest-drivers
* kselftest-efivarfs
* kselftest-filesystems
* kselftest-firmware
* kselftest-fpu
* kselftest-futex
* kselftest-gpio
* kselftest-intel_pstate
* kselftest-ipc
* kselftest-ir
* kselftest-kcmp
* kselftest-kexec
* kselftest-kvm
* kselftest-lib
* kselftest-livepatch
* kselftest-lkdtm
* kselftest-membarrier
* kselftest-memfd
* kselftest-memory-hotplug
* kselftest-mincore
* kselftest-mount
* kselftest-mqueue
* kselftest-net
* kselftest-netfilter
* kselftest-nsfs
* kselftest-openat2
* kselftest-pid_namespace
* kselftest-pidfd
* kselftest-proc
* kselftest-pstore
* kselftest-ptrace
* kselftest-rseq
* kselftest-rtc
* kselftest-seccomp
* kselftest-sigaltstack
* kselftest-size
* kselftest-splice
* kselftest-static_keys
* kselftest-sync
* kselftest-sysctl
* kselftest-tc-testing
* kselftest-timens
* kselftest-timers
* kselftest-tmpfs
* kselftest-tpm2
* kselftest-user
* kselftest-vm
* kselftest-x86
* kselftest-zram
* kvm-unit-tests
* libhugetlbfs
* linux-log-parser
* ltp-cap_bounds-tests
* ltp-commands-tests
* ltp-containers-tests
* ltp-controllers-tests
* ltp-cpuhotplug-tests
* ltp-crypto-tests
* ltp-cve-tests
* ltp-dio-tests
* ltp-fcntl-locktests-tests
* ltp-filecaps-tests
* ltp-fs-tests
* ltp-fs_bind-tests
* ltp-fs_perms_simple-tests
* ltp-fsx-tests
* ltp-hugetlb-tests
* ltp-io-tests
* ltp-ipc-tests
* ltp-math-tests
* ltp-mm-tests
* ltp-nptl-tests
* ltp-open-posix-tests
* ltp-pty-tests
* ltp-sched-tests
* ltp-securebits-tests
* ltp-syscalls-tests
* ltp-tracing-tests
* network-basic-tests
* packetdrill
* perf
* rcutorture
* ssuite
* v4l2-compliance

--
Linaro LKFT
https://lkft.linaro.org

Re: [PATCH 5.4 0/8] 5.4.116-rc1 review

[Guenter Roeck]

On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 04:20:14PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.4.116 release.
> There are 8 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.
> 
> Responses should be made by Sun, 02 May 2021 14:19:04 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
> 

Build results:
	total: 157 pass: 157 fail: 0
Qemu test results:
	total: 433 pass: 433 fail: 0

Tested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>

Guenter