On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 19:44 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>
>> 2.
>> while staring at the code realized that 64-byte buffer may not be enough
>> when 1st insn is large, so increase it to 128 to avoid buffer overflow
>> (theoretical maximum size of prologue+div is 109) and add runtime check.
>>
>
>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>> index d56cd1f..8266896 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>> @@ -187,7 +187,8 @@ static int do_jit(struct bpf_prog *bpf_prog, int *addrs,
>> u8 *image,
>> {
>> struct bpf_insn *insn = bpf_prog->insnsi;
>> int insn_cnt = bpf_prog->len;
>> - u8 temp[64];
>> + bool seen_ld_abs = ctx->seen_ld_abs | (oldproglen == 0);
>> + u8 temp[128];
>
> Hmmm. I would use some guard like :
>
> #define BPF_MAX_INSN_SIZE 128
> #define BPF_INSN_SAFETY 64
>
> u8 temp[MAX_INSN_SIZE + BPF_INSN_SAFETY];
>
>
>> + if (ilen >= sizeof(temp)) {
>
> if (ilen > BPF_MAX_INSN_SIZE) {
> ...
>
>> + pr_err("bpf_jit_compile fatal insn size error\n");
>> + return -EFAULT;
>> + }
>> +
>
> Otherwise, we might have corrupted stack and panic anyway.
well, it only reduces the chances of stack corruption.. but yeah,
let's reduce them. will respin.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
