From: "Naveen N. Rao" naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com
stable inclusion from stable-v5.10.96 commit 129c71829d7f46423d95c19e8d87ce956d4c6e1c category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/src-openeuler/kernel/issues/IA6SHY CVE: CVE-2024-38538
Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=...
--------------------------------
[ Upstream commit 3f5f766d5f7f95a69a630da3544a1a0cee1cdddf ]
Johan reported the below crash with test_bpf on ppc64 e5500:
test_bpf: #296 ALU_END_FROM_LE 64: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0x67452301 jited:1 Oops: Exception in kernel mode, sig: 4 [#1] BE PAGE_SIZE=4K SMP NR_CPUS=24 QEMU e500 Modules linked in: test_bpf(+) CPU: 0 PID: 76 Comm: insmod Not tainted 5.14.0-03771-g98c2059e008a-dirty #1 NIP: 8000000000061c3c LR: 80000000006dea64 CTR: 8000000000061c18 REGS: c0000000032d3420 TRAP: 0700 Not tainted (5.14.0-03771-g98c2059e008a-dirty) MSR: 0000000080089000 <EE,ME> CR: 88002822 XER: 20000000 IRQMASK: 0 <...> NIP [8000000000061c3c] 0x8000000000061c3c LR [80000000006dea64] .__run_one+0x104/0x17c [test_bpf] Call Trace: .__run_one+0x60/0x17c [test_bpf] (unreliable) .test_bpf_init+0x6a8/0xdc8 [test_bpf] .do_one_initcall+0x6c/0x28c .do_init_module+0x68/0x28c .load_module+0x2460/0x2abc .__do_sys_init_module+0x120/0x18c .system_call_exception+0x110/0x1b8 system_call_common+0xf0/0x210 --- interrupt: c00 at 0x101d0acc <...> ---[ end trace 47b2bf19090bb3d0 ]---
Illegal instruction
The illegal instruction turned out to be 'ldbrx' emitted for BPF_FROM_[L|B]E, which was only introduced in ISA v2.06. Guard use of the same and implement an alternative approach for older processors.
Fixes: 156d0e290e969c ("powerpc/ebpf/jit: Implement JIT compiler for extended BPF") Reported-by: Johan Almbladh johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com Tested-by: Johan Almbladh johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com Acked-by: Johan Almbladh johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman mpe@ellerman.id.au Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/d1e51c6fdf572062cf3009a751c3406bda01b832.164146812... Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org Conflicts: arch/powerpc/include/asm/ppc-opcode.h arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c Signed-off-by: Yuntao Liu liuyuntao12@huawei.com --- arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 24 ++++++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c index 791accb89cf8..185d20c371a3 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c @@ -592,17 +592,21 @@ static int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32 *image, PPC_MR(dst_reg, b2p[TMP_REG_1]); break; case 64: - /* - * Way easier and faster(?) to store the value - * into stack and then use ldbrx - * - * ctx->seen will be reliable in pass2, but - * the instructions generated will remain the - * same across all passes - */ + /* Store the value to stack and then use byte-reverse loads */ PPC_BPF_STL(dst_reg, 1, bpf_jit_stack_local(ctx)); - PPC_ADDI(b2p[TMP_REG_1], 1, bpf_jit_stack_local(ctx)); - PPC_LDBRX(dst_reg, 0, b2p[TMP_REG_1]); + EMIT(PPC_RAW_ADDI(b2p[TMP_REG_1], 1, bpf_jit_stack_local(ctx))); + if (cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_ARCH_206)) { + EMIT(PPC_RAW_LDBRX(dst_reg, 0, b2p[TMP_REG_1])); + } else { + EMIT(PPC_RAW_LWBRX(dst_reg, 0, b2p[TMP_REG_1])); + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN)) + EMIT(PPC_RAW_SLDI(dst_reg, dst_reg, 32)); + EMIT(PPC_RAW_LI(b2p[TMP_REG_2], 4)); + EMIT(PPC_RAW_LWBRX(b2p[TMP_REG_2], b2p[TMP_REG_2], b2p[TMP_REG_1])); + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CPU_BIG_ENDIAN)) + EMIT(PPC_RAW_SLDI(b2p[TMP_REG_2], b2p[TMP_REG_2], 32)); + EMIT(PPC_RAW_OR(dst_reg, dst_reg, b2p[TMP_REG_2])); + } break; } break;