I changed the sk_chk_filter() comment slightly, but that is the only
change since the patch I posted earlier today. This should now be ready
to be applied, unless any new reason is seen not to.
Signed-off-by: Kris Katterjohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sorry to send a whole new email, but I thought I'd go ahead and do it
to (1) change the comment, and (2) to have "signed-off-by" on the email
with the patch.
Thanks!
--- x/net/core/filter.c 2006-01-03 11:09:07.000000000 -0600
+++ y/net/core/filter.c 2006-01-03 21:42:02.000000000 -0600
@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
* 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
*
* Andi Kleen - Fix a few bad bugs and races.
+ * Kris Katterjohn - Added many additional checks in sk_chk_filter()
*/
#include <linux/module.h>
@@ -250,7 +251,7 @@ load_b:
mem[fentry->k] = X;
continue;
default:
- /* Invalid instruction counts as RET */
+ WARN_ON(1);
return 0;
}
@@ -283,8 +284,8 @@ load_b:
*
* Check the user's filter code. If we let some ugly
* filter code slip through kaboom! The filter must contain
- * no references or jumps that are out of range, no illegal instructions
- * and no backward jumps. It must end with a RET instruction
+ * no references or jumps that are out of range, no illegal
+ * instructions, and must end with a RET instruction.
*
* Returns 0 if the rule set is legal or a negative errno code if not.
*/
@@ -300,38 +301,85 @@ int sk_chk_filter(struct sock_filter *fi
for (pc = 0; pc < flen; pc++) {
/* all jumps are forward as they are not signed */
ftest = &filter[pc];
- if (BPF_CLASS(ftest->code) == BPF_JMP) {
- /* but they mustn't jump off the end */
- if (BPF_OP(ftest->code) == BPF_JA) {
- /*
- * Note, the large ftest->k might cause loops.
- * Compare this with conditional jumps below,
- * where offsets are limited. --ANK (981016)
- */
- if (ftest->k >= (unsigned)(flen-pc-1))
- return -EINVAL;
- } else {
- /* for conditionals both must be safe */
- if (pc + ftest->jt +1 >= flen ||
- pc + ftest->jf +1 >= flen)
- return -EINVAL;
- }
- }
- /* check for division by zero -Kris Katterjohn 2005-10-30 */
- if (ftest->code == (BPF_ALU|BPF_DIV|BPF_K) && ftest->k
== 0)
- return -EINVAL;
+ /* Only allow valid instructions */
+ switch (ftest->code) {
+ case BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_K:
+ case BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_X:
+ case BPF_ALU|BPF_SUB|BPF_K:
+ case BPF_ALU|BPF_SUB|BPF_X:
+ case BPF_ALU|BPF_MUL|BPF_K:
+ case BPF_ALU|BPF_MUL|BPF_X:
+ case BPF_ALU|BPF_DIV|BPF_X:
+ case BPF_ALU|BPF_AND|BPF_K:
+ case BPF_ALU|BPF_AND|BPF_X:
+ case BPF_ALU|BPF_OR|BPF_K:
+ case BPF_ALU|BPF_OR|BPF_X:
+ case BPF_ALU|BPF_LSH|BPF_K:
+ case BPF_ALU|BPF_LSH|BPF_X:
+ case BPF_ALU|BPF_RSH|BPF_K:
+ case BPF_ALU|BPF_RSH|BPF_X:
+ case BPF_ALU|BPF_NEG:
+ case BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_ABS:
+ case BPF_LD|BPF_H|BPF_ABS:
+ case BPF_LD|BPF_B|BPF_ABS:
+ case BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_LEN:
+ case BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_IND:
+ case BPF_LD|BPF_H|BPF_IND:
+ case BPF_LD|BPF_B|BPF_IND:
+ case BPF_LD|BPF_IMM:
+ case BPF_LDX|BPF_W|BPF_LEN:
+ case BPF_LDX|BPF_B|BPF_MSH:
+ case BPF_LDX|BPF_IMM:
+ case BPF_MISC|BPF_TAX:
+ case BPF_MISC|BPF_TXA:
+ case BPF_RET|BPF_K:
+ case BPF_RET|BPF_A:
+ break;
+
+ /* Some instructions need special checks */
- /* check that memory operations use valid addresses. */
- if (ftest->k >= BPF_MEMWORDS) {
- /* but it might not be a memory operation... */
- switch (ftest->code) {
- case BPF_ST:
- case BPF_STX:
- case BPF_LD|BPF_MEM:
- case BPF_LDX|BPF_MEM:
+ case BPF_ALU|BPF_DIV|BPF_K:
+ /* check for division by zero */
+ if (ftest->k == 0)
return -EINVAL;
- }
+ break;
+
+ case BPF_LD|BPF_MEM:
+ case BPF_LDX|BPF_MEM:
+ case BPF_ST:
+ case BPF_STX:
+ /* check for invalid memory addresses */
+ if (ftest->k >= BPF_MEMWORDS)
+ return -EINVAL;
+ break;
+
+ case BPF_JMP|BPF_JA:
+ /*
+ * Note, the large ftest->k might cause loops.
+ * Compare this with conditional jumps below,
+ * where offsets are limited. --ANK (981016)
+ */
+ if (ftest->k >= (unsigned)(flen-pc-1))
+ return -EINVAL;
+ break;
+
+ case BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K:
+ case BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_X:
+ case BPF_JMP|BPF_JGE|BPF_K:
+ case BPF_JMP|BPF_JGE|BPF_X:
+ case BPF_JMP|BPF_JGT|BPF_K:
+ case BPF_JMP|BPF_JGT|BPF_X:
+ case BPF_JMP|BPF_JSET|BPF_K:
+ case BPF_JMP|BPF_JSET|BPF_X:
+ /* for conditionals both must be safe */
+ if (pc + ftest->jt + 1 >= flen ||
+ pc + ftest->jf + 1 >= flen)
+ return -EINVAL;
+ break;
+
+ default:
+ return -EINVAL;
}
}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
