4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Rabin Vincent <ra...@rab.in>
[ Upstream commit 229394e8e62a4191d592842cf67e80c62a492937 ]
On ARM64, a BUG() is triggered in the eBPF JIT if a filter with a
constant shift that can't be encoded in the immediate field of the
UBFM/SBFM instructions is passed to the JIT. Since these shifts
amounts, which are negative or >= regsize, are invalid, reject them in
the eBPF verifier and the classic BPF filter checker, for all
architectures.
Signed-off-by: Rabin Vincent <ra...@rab.in>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <a...@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <dan...@iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <da...@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 10 ++++++++++
net/core/filter.c | 5 +++++
2 files changed, 15 insertions(+)
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -1121,6 +1121,16 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct verifier_
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;
+
+ if (insn->imm < 0 || insn->imm >= size) {
+ verbose("invalid shift %d\n", insn->imm);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+ }
+
/* pattern match 'bpf_add Rx, imm' instruction */
if (opcode == BPF_ADD && BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64 &&
regs[insn->dst_reg].type == FRAME_PTR &&
--- a/net/core/filter.c
+++ b/net/core/filter.c
@@ -777,6 +777,11 @@ static int bpf_check_classic(const struc
if (ftest->k == 0)
return -EINVAL;
break;
+ case BPF_ALU | BPF_LSH | BPF_K:
+ case BPF_ALU | BPF_RSH | BPF_K:
+ if (ftest->k >= 32)
+ return -EINVAL;
+ break;
case BPF_LD | BPF_MEM:
case BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM:
case BPF_ST:
