From: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net
commit b9b34ddbe2076ade359cd5ce7537d5ed019e9807 upstream.
The negation logic for the case where the off_reg is sitting in the dst register is not correct given then we cannot just invert the add to a sub or vice versa. As a fix, perform the final bitwise and-op unconditionally into AX from the off_reg, then move the pointer from the src to dst and finally use AX as the source for the original pointer arithmetic operation such that the inversion yields a correct result. The single non-AX mov in between is possible given constant blinding is retaining it as it's not an immediate based operation.
Fixes: 979d63d50c0c ("bpf: prevent out of bounds speculation on pointer arithmetic") Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net Tested-by: Piotr Krysiuk piotras@gmail.com Reviewed-by: Piotr Krysiuk piotras@gmail.com Reviewed-by: John Fastabend john.fastabend@gmail.com Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov ast@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Signed-off-by: Yang Yingliang yangyingliang@huawei.com --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 12 ++++-------- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index f9d8fc953b70d..703bbdea5ea7d 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -6040,14 +6040,10 @@ static int fixup_bpf_calls(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) *patch++ = BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_AX, off_reg); *patch++ = BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_NEG, BPF_REG_AX, 0); *patch++ = BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_AX, 63); - if (issrc) { - *patch++ = BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_AX, - off_reg); - insn->src_reg = BPF_REG_AX; - } else { - *patch++ = BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_AND, off_reg, - BPF_REG_AX); - } + *patch++ = BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_AX, off_reg); + if (!issrc) + *patch++ = BPF_MOV64_REG(insn->dst_reg, insn->src_reg); + insn->src_reg = BPF_REG_AX; if (isneg) insn->code = insn->code == code_add ? code_sub : code_add;