From: Yazhou Tang <tangyazhou518@outlook.com> stable inclusion from stable-v6.6.112 commit 3bce44b344040e5eef3d64d38b157c15304c0aab category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/src-openeuler/kernel/issues/ID6BC3 CVE: CVE-2025-40169 Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=... -------------------------------- [ Upstream commit 55c0ced59fe17dee34e9dfd5f7be63cbab207758 ] When verifying BPF programs, the check_alu_op() function validates instructions with ALU operations. The 'offset' field in these instructions is a signed 16-bit integer. The existing check 'insn->off > 1' was intended to ensure the offset is either 0, or 1 for BPF_MOD/BPF_DIV. However, because 'insn->off' is signed, this check incorrectly accepts all negative values (e.g., -1). This commit tightens the validation by changing the condition to '(insn->off != 0 && insn->off != 1)'. This ensures that any value other than the explicitly permitted 0 and 1 is rejected, hardening the verifier against malformed BPF programs. Co-developed-by: Shenghao Yuan <shenghaoyuan0928@163.com> Signed-off-by: Shenghao Yuan <shenghaoyuan0928@163.com> Co-developed-by: Tianci Cao <ziye@zju.edu.cn> Signed-off-by: Tianci Cao <ziye@zju.edu.cn> Signed-off-by: Yazhou Tang <tangyazhou518@outlook.com> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev> Fixes: ec0e2da95f72 ("bpf: Support new signed div/mod instructions.") Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/tencent_70D024BAE70A0A309A4781694C7B764B0608@qq.co... Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com> --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 3a85c3ff4a43..71511690e4c1 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -13814,7 +13814,7 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn) } else { /* all other ALU ops: and, sub, xor, add, ... */ if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X) { - if (insn->imm != 0 || insn->off > 1 || + if (insn->imm != 0 || (insn->off != 0 && insn->off != 1) || (insn->off == 1 && opcode != BPF_MOD && opcode != BPF_DIV)) { verbose(env, "BPF_ALU uses reserved fields\n"); return -EINVAL; @@ -13824,7 +13824,7 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn) if (err) return err; } else { - if (insn->src_reg != BPF_REG_0 || insn->off > 1 || + if (insn->src_reg != BPF_REG_0 || (insn->off != 0 && insn->off != 1) || (insn->off == 1 && opcode != BPF_MOD && opcode != BPF_DIV)) { verbose(env, "BPF_ALU uses reserved fields\n"); return -EINVAL; -- 2.34.1