[PATCH 4.14 0/4] BPF fixes for CVE-2021-3444 and CVE-2021-3600

[PATCH 4.14 0/4] BPF fixes for CVE-2021-3444 and CVE-2021-3600

[Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo]

The upstream changes necessary to fix these CVEs rely on the presence of JMP32,
which is not a small backport and brings its own potential set of necessary
follow-ups.

Daniel Borkmann, John Fastabend and Alexei Starovoitov came up with a fix
involving the use of the AX register.

This has been tested against the test_verifier in 4.14.y tree and some tests
specific to the two referred CVEs. The test_bpf module was also tested.

Daniel Borkmann (4):
  bpf: Do not use ax register in interpreter on div/mod
  bpf: fix subprog verifier bypass by div/mod by 0 exception
  bpf: Fix 32 bit src register truncation on div/mod
  bpf: Fix truncation handling for mod32 dst reg wrt zero

 include/linux/filter.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
 kernel/bpf/core.c      | 40 +++++++++++++++-------------------------
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c  | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
 net/core/filter.c      |  9 ++++++++-
 4 files changed, 78 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)

-- 
2.30.2

[PATCH 4.14 1/4] bpf: Do not use ax register in interpreter on div/mod

[Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo]

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

Partially undo old commit 144cd91c4c2b ("bpf: move tmp variable into ax
register in interpreter"). The reason we need this here is because ax
register will be used for holding temporary state for div/mod instruction
which otherwise interpreter would corrupt. This will cause a small +8 byte
stack increase for interpreter, but with the gain that we can use it from
verifier rewrites as scratch register.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Reviewed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
[cascardo: This partial revert is needed in order to support using AX for
the following two commits, as there is no JMP32 on 4.19.y]
Signed-off-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@canonical.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/core.c | 32 +++++++++++++++-----------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
index e7211b0fa27c..30d871be9974 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
@@ -616,9 +616,6 @@ static int bpf_jit_blind_insn(const struct bpf_insn *from,
 	 * below.
 	 *
 	 * Constant blinding is only used by JITs, not in the interpreter.
-	 * The interpreter uses AX in some occasions as a local temporary
-	 * register e.g. in DIV or MOD instructions.
-	 *
 	 * In restricted circumstances, the verifier can also use the AX
 	 * register for rewrites as long as they do not interfere with
 	 * the above cases!
@@ -951,6 +948,7 @@ static unsigned int ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn,
 	u32 tail_call_cnt = 0;
 	void *ptr;
 	int off;
+	u64 tmp;
 
 #define CONT	 ({ insn++; goto select_insn; })
 #define CONT_JMP ({ insn++; goto select_insn; })
@@ -1013,22 +1011,22 @@ static unsigned int ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn,
 	ALU64_MOD_X:
 		if (unlikely(SRC == 0))
 			return 0;
-		div64_u64_rem(DST, SRC, &AX);
-		DST = AX;
+		div64_u64_rem(DST, SRC, &tmp);
+		DST = tmp;
 		CONT;
 	ALU_MOD_X:
 		if (unlikely((u32)SRC == 0))
 			return 0;
-		AX = (u32) DST;
-		DST = do_div(AX, (u32) SRC);
+		tmp = (u32) DST;
+		DST = do_div(tmp, (u32) SRC);
 		CONT;
 	ALU64_MOD_K:
-		div64_u64_rem(DST, IMM, &AX);
-		DST = AX;
+		div64_u64_rem(DST, IMM, &tmp);
+		DST = tmp;
 		CONT;
 	ALU_MOD_K:
-		AX = (u32) DST;
-		DST = do_div(AX, (u32) IMM);
+		tmp = (u32) DST;
+		DST = do_div(tmp, (u32) IMM);
 		CONT;
 	ALU64_DIV_X:
 		if (unlikely(SRC == 0))
@@ -1038,17 +1036,17 @@ static unsigned int ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn,
 	ALU_DIV_X:
 		if (unlikely((u32)SRC == 0))
 			return 0;
-		AX = (u32) DST;
-		do_div(AX, (u32) SRC);
-		DST = (u32) AX;
+		tmp = (u32) DST;
+		do_div(tmp, (u32) SRC);
+		DST = (u32) tmp;
 		CONT;
 	ALU64_DIV_K:
 		DST = div64_u64(DST, IMM);
 		CONT;
 	ALU_DIV_K:
-		AX = (u32) DST;
-		do_div(AX, (u32) IMM);
-		DST = (u32) AX;
+		tmp = (u32) DST;
+		do_div(tmp, (u32) IMM);
+		DST = (u32) tmp;
 		CONT;
 	ALU_END_TO_BE:
 		switch (IMM) {
-- 
2.30.2

Re: [PATCH 4.14 1/4] bpf: Do not use ax register in interpreter on div/mod

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 03:32:08PM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
> 
> Partially undo old commit 144cd91c4c2b ("bpf: move tmp variable into ax
> register in interpreter"). The reason we need this here is because ax
> register will be used for holding temporary state for div/mod instruction
> which otherwise interpreter would corrupt. This will cause a small +8 byte
> stack increase for interpreter, but with the gain that we can use it from
> verifier rewrites as scratch register.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
> Reviewed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
> [cascardo: This partial revert is needed in order to support using AX for
> the following two commits, as there is no JMP32 on 4.19.y]
> Signed-off-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@canonical.com>
> ---
>  kernel/bpf/core.c | 32 +++++++++++++++-----------------
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> index e7211b0fa27c..30d871be9974 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> @@ -616,9 +616,6 @@ static int bpf_jit_blind_insn(const struct bpf_insn *from,
>  	 * below.
>  	 *
>  	 * Constant blinding is only used by JITs, not in the interpreter.
> -	 * The interpreter uses AX in some occasions as a local temporary
> -	 * register e.g. in DIV or MOD instructions.
> -	 *
>  	 * In restricted circumstances, the verifier can also use the AX
>  	 * register for rewrites as long as they do not interfere with
>  	 * the above cases!
> @@ -951,6 +948,7 @@ static unsigned int ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn,
>  	u32 tail_call_cnt = 0;
>  	void *ptr;
>  	int off;
> +	u64 tmp;
>  
>  #define CONT	 ({ insn++; goto select_insn; })
>  #define CONT_JMP ({ insn++; goto select_insn; })
> @@ -1013,22 +1011,22 @@ static unsigned int ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn,
>  	ALU64_MOD_X:
>  		if (unlikely(SRC == 0))
>  			return 0;
> -		div64_u64_rem(DST, SRC, &AX);
> -		DST = AX;
> +		div64_u64_rem(DST, SRC, &tmp);
> +		DST = tmp;
>  		CONT;
>  	ALU_MOD_X:
>  		if (unlikely((u32)SRC == 0))
>  			return 0;
> -		AX = (u32) DST;
> -		DST = do_div(AX, (u32) SRC);
> +		tmp = (u32) DST;
> +		DST = do_div(tmp, (u32) SRC);
>  		CONT;
>  	ALU64_MOD_K:
> -		div64_u64_rem(DST, IMM, &AX);
> -		DST = AX;
> +		div64_u64_rem(DST, IMM, &tmp);
> +		DST = tmp;
>  		CONT;
>  	ALU_MOD_K:
> -		AX = (u32) DST;
> -		DST = do_div(AX, (u32) IMM);
> +		tmp = (u32) DST;
> +		DST = do_div(tmp, (u32) IMM);
>  		CONT;
>  	ALU64_DIV_X:
>  		if (unlikely(SRC == 0))
> @@ -1038,17 +1036,17 @@ static unsigned int ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn,
>  	ALU_DIV_X:
>  		if (unlikely((u32)SRC == 0))
>  			return 0;
> -		AX = (u32) DST;
> -		do_div(AX, (u32) SRC);
> -		DST = (u32) AX;
> +		tmp = (u32) DST;
> +		do_div(tmp, (u32) SRC);
> +		DST = (u32) tmp;
>  		CONT;
>  	ALU64_DIV_K:
>  		DST = div64_u64(DST, IMM);
>  		CONT;
>  	ALU_DIV_K:
> -		AX = (u32) DST;
> -		do_div(AX, (u32) IMM);
> -		DST = (u32) AX;
> +		tmp = (u32) DST;
> +		do_div(tmp, (u32) IMM);
> +		DST = (u32) tmp;
>  		CONT;
>  	ALU_END_TO_BE:
>  		switch (IMM) {
> -- 
> 2.30.2
> 

Oops, no, this patch causes build errors:

kernel/bpf/core.c: In function ‘___bpf_prog_run’:
kernel/bpf/core.c:951:13: error: redeclaration of ‘tmp’ with no linkage
  951 |         u64 tmp;
      |             ^~~
kernel/bpf/core.c:839:13: note: previous declaration of ‘tmp’ with type ‘u64’ {aka ‘long long unsigned int’}
  839 |         u64 tmp;
      |             ^~~
make[2]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:329: kernel/bpf/core.o] Error 1


Please fix up and resend the whole series, as I will go drop these 3
patches from the 4.14.y queue now.

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH 4.14 1/4] bpf: Do not use ax register in interpreter on div/mod

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 01:30:37PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 03:32:08PM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> > From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
> > 
> > Partially undo old commit 144cd91c4c2b ("bpf: move tmp variable into ax
> > register in interpreter"). The reason we need this here is because ax
> > register will be used for holding temporary state for div/mod instruction
> > which otherwise interpreter would corrupt. This will cause a small +8 byte
> > stack increase for interpreter, but with the gain that we can use it from
> > verifier rewrites as scratch register.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
> > Reviewed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
> > [cascardo: This partial revert is needed in order to support using AX for
> > the following two commits, as there is no JMP32 on 4.19.y]
> > Signed-off-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@canonical.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/bpf/core.c | 32 +++++++++++++++-----------------
> >  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> > index e7211b0fa27c..30d871be9974 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> > @@ -616,9 +616,6 @@ static int bpf_jit_blind_insn(const struct bpf_insn *from,
> >  	 * below.
> >  	 *
> >  	 * Constant blinding is only used by JITs, not in the interpreter.
> > -	 * The interpreter uses AX in some occasions as a local temporary
> > -	 * register e.g. in DIV or MOD instructions.
> > -	 *
> >  	 * In restricted circumstances, the verifier can also use the AX
> >  	 * register for rewrites as long as they do not interfere with
> >  	 * the above cases!
> > @@ -951,6 +948,7 @@ static unsigned int ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn,
> >  	u32 tail_call_cnt = 0;
> >  	void *ptr;
> >  	int off;
> > +	u64 tmp;
> >  
> >  #define CONT	 ({ insn++; goto select_insn; })
> >  #define CONT_JMP ({ insn++; goto select_insn; })
> > @@ -1013,22 +1011,22 @@ static unsigned int ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn,
> >  	ALU64_MOD_X:
> >  		if (unlikely(SRC == 0))
> >  			return 0;
> > -		div64_u64_rem(DST, SRC, &AX);
> > -		DST = AX;
> > +		div64_u64_rem(DST, SRC, &tmp);
> > +		DST = tmp;
> >  		CONT;
> >  	ALU_MOD_X:
> >  		if (unlikely((u32)SRC == 0))
> >  			return 0;
> > -		AX = (u32) DST;
> > -		DST = do_div(AX, (u32) SRC);
> > +		tmp = (u32) DST;
> > +		DST = do_div(tmp, (u32) SRC);
> >  		CONT;
> >  	ALU64_MOD_K:
> > -		div64_u64_rem(DST, IMM, &AX);
> > -		DST = AX;
> > +		div64_u64_rem(DST, IMM, &tmp);
> > +		DST = tmp;
> >  		CONT;
> >  	ALU_MOD_K:
> > -		AX = (u32) DST;
> > -		DST = do_div(AX, (u32) IMM);
> > +		tmp = (u32) DST;
> > +		DST = do_div(tmp, (u32) IMM);
> >  		CONT;
> >  	ALU64_DIV_X:
> >  		if (unlikely(SRC == 0))
> > @@ -1038,17 +1036,17 @@ static unsigned int ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn,
> >  	ALU_DIV_X:
> >  		if (unlikely((u32)SRC == 0))
> >  			return 0;
> > -		AX = (u32) DST;
> > -		do_div(AX, (u32) SRC);
> > -		DST = (u32) AX;
> > +		tmp = (u32) DST;
> > +		do_div(tmp, (u32) SRC);
> > +		DST = (u32) tmp;
> >  		CONT;
> >  	ALU64_DIV_K:
> >  		DST = div64_u64(DST, IMM);
> >  		CONT;
> >  	ALU_DIV_K:
> > -		AX = (u32) DST;
> > -		do_div(AX, (u32) IMM);
> > -		DST = (u32) AX;
> > +		tmp = (u32) DST;
> > +		do_div(tmp, (u32) IMM);
> > +		DST = (u32) tmp;
> >  		CONT;
> >  	ALU_END_TO_BE:
> >  		switch (IMM) {
> > -- 
> > 2.30.2
> > 
> 
> Oops, no, this patch causes build errors:
> 
> kernel/bpf/core.c: In function ‘___bpf_prog_run’:
> kernel/bpf/core.c:951:13: error: redeclaration of ‘tmp’ with no linkage
>   951 |         u64 tmp;
>       |             ^~~
> kernel/bpf/core.c:839:13: note: previous declaration of ‘tmp’ with type ‘u64’ {aka ‘long long unsigned int’}
>   839 |         u64 tmp;
>       |             ^~~
> make[2]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:329: kernel/bpf/core.o] Error 1
> 
> 
> Please fix up and resend the whole series, as I will go drop these 3
> patches from the 4.14.y queue now.

All _4_ patches I mean.  now dropped...

Re: [PATCH 4.14 1/4] bpf: Do not use ax register in interpreter on div/mod

[Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo]

On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 01:31:18PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 01:30:37PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 03:32:08PM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> > > From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
> > > 
> > > Partially undo old commit 144cd91c4c2b ("bpf: move tmp variable into ax
> > > register in interpreter"). The reason we need this here is because ax
> > > register will be used for holding temporary state for div/mod instruction
> > > which otherwise interpreter would corrupt. This will cause a small +8 byte
> > > stack increase for interpreter, but with the gain that we can use it from
> > > verifier rewrites as scratch register.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
> > > Reviewed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
> > > [cascardo: This partial revert is needed in order to support using AX for
> > > the following two commits, as there is no JMP32 on 4.19.y]
> > > Signed-off-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@canonical.com>
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/bpf/core.c | 32 +++++++++++++++-----------------
> > >  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> > > index e7211b0fa27c..30d871be9974 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> > > @@ -616,9 +616,6 @@ static int bpf_jit_blind_insn(const struct bpf_insn *from,
> > >  	 * below.
> > >  	 *
> > >  	 * Constant blinding is only used by JITs, not in the interpreter.
> > > -	 * The interpreter uses AX in some occasions as a local temporary
> > > -	 * register e.g. in DIV or MOD instructions.
> > > -	 *
> > >  	 * In restricted circumstances, the verifier can also use the AX
> > >  	 * register for rewrites as long as they do not interfere with
> > >  	 * the above cases!
> > > @@ -951,6 +948,7 @@ static unsigned int ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn,
> > >  	u32 tail_call_cnt = 0;
> > >  	void *ptr;
> > >  	int off;
> > > +	u64 tmp;
> > >  
> > >  #define CONT	 ({ insn++; goto select_insn; })
> > >  #define CONT_JMP ({ insn++; goto select_insn; })
> > > @@ -1013,22 +1011,22 @@ static unsigned int ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn,
> > >  	ALU64_MOD_X:
> > >  		if (unlikely(SRC == 0))
> > >  			return 0;
> > > -		div64_u64_rem(DST, SRC, &AX);
> > > -		DST = AX;
> > > +		div64_u64_rem(DST, SRC, &tmp);
> > > +		DST = tmp;
> > >  		CONT;
> > >  	ALU_MOD_X:
> > >  		if (unlikely((u32)SRC == 0))
> > >  			return 0;
> > > -		AX = (u32) DST;
> > > -		DST = do_div(AX, (u32) SRC);
> > > +		tmp = (u32) DST;
> > > +		DST = do_div(tmp, (u32) SRC);
> > >  		CONT;
> > >  	ALU64_MOD_K:
> > > -		div64_u64_rem(DST, IMM, &AX);
> > > -		DST = AX;
> > > +		div64_u64_rem(DST, IMM, &tmp);
> > > +		DST = tmp;
> > >  		CONT;
> > >  	ALU_MOD_K:
> > > -		AX = (u32) DST;
> > > -		DST = do_div(AX, (u32) IMM);
> > > +		tmp = (u32) DST;
> > > +		DST = do_div(tmp, (u32) IMM);
> > >  		CONT;
> > >  	ALU64_DIV_X:
> > >  		if (unlikely(SRC == 0))
> > > @@ -1038,17 +1036,17 @@ static unsigned int ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn,
> > >  	ALU_DIV_X:
> > >  		if (unlikely((u32)SRC == 0))
> > >  			return 0;
> > > -		AX = (u32) DST;
> > > -		do_div(AX, (u32) SRC);
> > > -		DST = (u32) AX;
> > > +		tmp = (u32) DST;
> > > +		do_div(tmp, (u32) SRC);
> > > +		DST = (u32) tmp;
> > >  		CONT;
> > >  	ALU64_DIV_K:
> > >  		DST = div64_u64(DST, IMM);
> > >  		CONT;
> > >  	ALU_DIV_K:
> > > -		AX = (u32) DST;
> > > -		do_div(AX, (u32) IMM);
> > > -		DST = (u32) AX;
> > > +		tmp = (u32) DST;
> > > +		do_div(tmp, (u32) IMM);
> > > +		DST = (u32) tmp;
> > >  		CONT;
> > >  	ALU_END_TO_BE:
> > >  		switch (IMM) {
> > > -- 
> > > 2.30.2
> > > 
> > 
> > Oops, no, this patch causes build errors:
> > 
> > kernel/bpf/core.c: In function ‘___bpf_prog_run’:
> > kernel/bpf/core.c:951:13: error: redeclaration of ‘tmp’ with no linkage
> >   951 |         u64 tmp;
> >       |             ^~~
> > kernel/bpf/core.c:839:13: note: previous declaration of ‘tmp’ with type ‘u64’ {aka ‘long long unsigned int’}
> >   839 |         u64 tmp;
> >       |             ^~~
> > make[2]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:329: kernel/bpf/core.o] Error 1
> > 
> > 
> > Please fix up and resend the whole series, as I will go drop these 3
> > patches from the 4.14.y queue now.
> 
> All _4_ patches I mean.  now dropped...

Ah... it seems I only built it with CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON. I will build with
both that option on and off and check the results.

Thanks for catching this.

Cascardo.

[PATCH 4.14 2/4] bpf: fix subprog verifier bypass by div/mod by 0 exception

[Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo]

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

Commit f6b1b3bf0d5f681631a293cfe1ca934b81716f1e upstream.

One of the ugly leftovers from the early eBPF days is that div/mod
operations based on registers have a hard-coded src_reg == 0 test
in the interpreter as well as in JIT code generators that would
return from the BPF program with exit code 0. This was basically
adopted from cBPF interpreter for historical reasons.

There are multiple reasons why this is very suboptimal and prone
to bugs. To name one: the return code mapping for such abnormal
program exit of 0 does not always match with a suitable program
type's exit code mapping. For example, '0' in tc means action 'ok'
where the packet gets passed further up the stack, which is just
undesirable for such cases (e.g. when implementing policy) and
also does not match with other program types.

While trying to work out an exception handling scheme, I also
noticed that programs crafted like the following will currently
pass the verifier:

  0: (bf) r6 = r1
  1: (85) call pc+8
  caller:
   R6=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0,call_-1
  callee:
   frame1: R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0,call_1
  10: (b4) (u32) r2 = (u32) 0
  11: (b4) (u32) r3 = (u32) 1
  12: (3c) (u32) r3 /= (u32) r2
  13: (61) r0 = *(u32 *)(r1 +76)
  14: (95) exit
  returning from callee:
   frame1: R0_w=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=0,imm=0)
           R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2_w=inv0
           R3_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
           R10=fp0,call_1
  to caller at 2:
   R0_w=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=0,imm=0) R6=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0)
   R10=fp0,call_-1

  from 14 to 2: R0=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=0,imm=0)
                R6=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0,call_-1
  2: (bf) r1 = r6
  3: (61) r1 = *(u32 *)(r1 +80)
  4: (bf) r2 = r0
  5: (07) r2 += 8
  6: (2d) if r2 > r1 goto pc+1
   R0=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=8,imm=0) R1=pkt_end(id=0,off=0,imm=0)
   R2=pkt(id=0,off=8,r=8,imm=0) R6=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0)
   R10=fp0,call_-1
  7: (71) r0 = *(u8 *)(r0 +0)
  8: (b7) r0 = 1
  9: (95) exit

  from 6 to 8: safe
  processed 16 insns (limit 131072), stack depth 0+0

Basically what happens is that in the subprog we make use of a
div/mod by 0 exception and in the 'normal' subprog's exit path
we just return skb->data back to the main prog. This has the
implication that the verifier thinks we always get a pkt pointer
in R0 while we still have the implicit 'return 0' from the div
as an alternative unconditional return path earlier. Thus, R0
then contains 0, meaning back in the parent prog we get the
address range of [0x0, skb->data_end] as read and writeable.
Similar can be crafted with other pointer register types.

Since i) BPF_ABS/IND is not allowed in programs that contain
BPF to BPF calls (and generally it's also disadvised to use in
native eBPF context), ii) unknown opcodes don't return zero
anymore, iii) we don't return an exception code in dead branches,
the only last missing case affected and to fix is the div/mod
handling.

What we would really need is some infrastructure to propagate
exceptions all the way to the original prog unwinding the
current stack and returning that code to the caller of the
BPF program. In user space such exception handling for similar
runtimes is typically implemented with setjmp(3) and longjmp(3)
as one possibility which is not available in the kernel,
though (kgdb used to implement it in kernel long time ago). I
implemented a PoC exception handling mechanism into the BPF
interpreter with porting setjmp()/longjmp() into x86_64 and
adding a new internal BPF_ABRT opcode that can use a program
specific exception code for all exception cases we have (e.g.
div/mod by 0, unknown opcodes, etc). While this seems to work
in the constrained BPF environment (meaning, here, we don't
need to deal with state e.g. from memory allocations that we
would need to undo before going into exception state), it still
has various drawbacks: i) we would need to implement the
setjmp()/longjmp() for every arch supported in the kernel and
for x86_64, arm64, sparc64 JITs currently supporting calls,
ii) it has unconditional additional cost on main program
entry to store CPU register state in initial setjmp() call,
and we would need some way to pass the jmp_buf down into
___bpf_prog_run() for main prog and all subprogs, but also
storing on stack is not really nice (other option would be
per-cpu storage for this, but it also has the drawback that
we need to disable preemption for every BPF program types).
All in all this approach would add a lot of complexity.

Another poor-man's solution would be to have some sort of
additional shared register or scratch buffer to hold state
for exceptions, and test that after every call return to
chain returns and pass R0 all the way down to BPF prog caller.
This is also problematic in various ways: i) an additional
register doesn't map well into JITs, and some other scratch
space could only be on per-cpu storage, which, again has the
side-effect that this only works when we disable preemption,
or somewhere in the input context which is not available
everywhere either, and ii) this adds significant runtime
overhead by putting conditionals after each and every call,
as well as implementation complexity.

Yet another option is to teach verifier that div/mod can
return an integer, which however is also complex to implement
as verifier would need to walk such fake 'mov r0,<code>; exit;'
sequeuence and there would still be no guarantee for having
propagation of this further down to the BPF caller as proper
exception code. For parent prog, it is also is not distinguishable
from a normal return of a constant scalar value.

The approach taken here is a completely different one with
little complexity and no additional overhead involved in
that we make use of the fact that a div/mod by 0 is undefined
behavior. Instead of bailing out, we adapt the same behavior
as on some major archs like ARMv8 [0] into eBPF as well:
X div 0 results in 0, and X mod 0 results in X. aarch64 and
aarch32 ISA do not generate any traps or otherwise aborts
of program execution for unsigned divides. I verified this
also with a test program compiled by gcc and clang, and the
behavior matches with the spec. Going forward we adapt the
eBPF verifier to emit such rewrites once div/mod by register
was seen. cBPF is not touched and will keep existing 'return 0'
semantics. Given the options, it seems the most suitable from
all of them, also since major archs have similar schemes in
place. Given this is all in the realm of undefined behavior,
we still have the option to adapt if deemed necessary and
this way we would also have the option of more flexibility
from LLVM code generation side (which is then fully visible
to verifier). Thus, this patch i) fixes the panic seen in
above program and ii) doesn't bypass the verifier observations.

  [0] ARM Architecture Reference Manual, ARMv8 [ARM DDI 0487B.b]
      http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.ddi0487b.b/DDI0487B_b_armv8_arm.pdf
      1) aarch64 instruction set: section C3.4.7 and C6.2.279 (UDIV)
         "A division by zero results in a zero being written to
          the destination register, without any indication that
          the division by zero occurred."
      2) aarch32 instruction set: section F1.4.8 and F5.1.263 (UDIV)
         "For the SDIV and UDIV instructions, division by zero
          always returns a zero result."

Fixes: f4d7e40a5b71 ("bpf: introduce function calls (verification)")
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@canonical.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/core.c     |  8 --------
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
 net/core/filter.c     |  9 ++++++++-
 3 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
index 30d871be9974..6bfe20ef0f7d 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
@@ -1009,14 +1009,10 @@ static unsigned int ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn,
 		(*(s64 *) &DST) >>= IMM;
 		CONT;
 	ALU64_MOD_X:
-		if (unlikely(SRC == 0))
-			return 0;
 		div64_u64_rem(DST, SRC, &tmp);
 		DST = tmp;
 		CONT;
 	ALU_MOD_X:
-		if (unlikely((u32)SRC == 0))
-			return 0;
 		tmp = (u32) DST;
 		DST = do_div(tmp, (u32) SRC);
 		CONT;
@@ -1029,13 +1025,9 @@ static unsigned int ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn,
 		DST = do_div(tmp, (u32) IMM);
 		CONT;
 	ALU64_DIV_X:
-		if (unlikely(SRC == 0))
-			return 0;
 		DST = div64_u64(DST, SRC);
 		CONT;
 	ALU_DIV_X:
-		if (unlikely((u32)SRC == 0))
-			return 0;
 		tmp = (u32) DST;
 		do_div(tmp, (u32) SRC);
 		DST = (u32) tmp;
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 4a3333039bf2..e5ff8b0e1b41 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -4838,15 +4838,37 @@ static int fixup_bpf_calls(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 	struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux;
 
 	for (i = 0; i < insn_cnt; i++, insn++) {
-		if (insn->code == (BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD | BPF_X) ||
+		if (insn->code == (BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_X) ||
+		    insn->code == (BPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_X) ||
+		    insn->code == (BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD | BPF_X) ||
 		    insn->code == (BPF_ALU | BPF_DIV | BPF_X)) {
-			/* due to JIT bugs clear upper 32-bits of src register
-			 * before div/mod operation
-			 */
-			insn_buf[0] = BPF_MOV32_REG(insn->src_reg, insn->src_reg);
-			insn_buf[1] = *insn;
-			cnt = 2;
-			new_prog = bpf_patch_insn_data(env, i + delta, insn_buf, cnt);
+			bool is64 = BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64;
+			struct bpf_insn mask_and_div[] = {
+				BPF_MOV32_REG(insn->src_reg, insn->src_reg),
+				/* Rx div 0 -> 0 */
+				BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, insn->src_reg, 0, 2),
+				BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_XOR, insn->dst_reg, insn->dst_reg),
+				BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 1),
+				*insn,
+			};
+			struct bpf_insn mask_and_mod[] = {
+				BPF_MOV32_REG(insn->src_reg, insn->src_reg),
+				/* Rx mod 0 -> Rx */
+				BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, insn->src_reg, 0, 1),
+				*insn,
+			};
+			struct bpf_insn *patchlet;
+
+			if (insn->code == (BPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_X) ||
+			    insn->code == (BPF_ALU | BPF_DIV | BPF_X)) {
+				patchlet = mask_and_div + (is64 ? 1 : 0);
+				cnt = ARRAY_SIZE(mask_and_div) - (is64 ? 1 : 0);
+			} else {
+				patchlet = mask_and_mod + (is64 ? 1 : 0);
+				cnt = ARRAY_SIZE(mask_and_mod) - (is64 ? 1 : 0);
+			}
+
+			new_prog = bpf_patch_insn_data(env, i + delta, patchlet, cnt);
 			if (!new_prog)
 				return -ENOMEM;
 
diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
index 40b378bed603..78919f43cb98 100644
--- a/net/core/filter.c
+++ b/net/core/filter.c
@@ -458,8 +458,15 @@ static int bpf_convert_filter(struct sock_filter *prog, int len,
 				break;
 
 			if (fp->code == (BPF_ALU | BPF_DIV | BPF_X) ||
-			    fp->code == (BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD | BPF_X))
+			    fp->code == (BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD | BPF_X)) {
 				*insn++ = BPF_MOV32_REG(BPF_REG_X, BPF_REG_X);
+				/* Error with exception code on div/mod by 0.
+				 * For cBPF programs, this was always return 0.
+				 */
+				*insn++ = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_X, 0, 2);
+				*insn++ = BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_XOR, BPF_REG_A, BPF_REG_A);
+				*insn++ = BPF_EXIT_INSN();
+			}
 
 			*insn = BPF_RAW_INSN(fp->code, BPF_REG_A, BPF_REG_X, 0, fp->k);
 			break;
-- 
2.30.2

[PATCH 4.14 3/4] bpf: Fix 32 bit src register truncation on div/mod

[Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo]

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

Commit e88b2c6e5a4d9ce30d75391e4d950da74bb2bd90 upstream.

While reviewing a different fix, John and I noticed an oddity in one of the
BPF program dumps that stood out, for example:

  # bpftool p d x i 13
   0: (b7) r0 = 808464450
   1: (b4) w4 = 808464432
   2: (bc) w0 = w0
   3: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+1
   4: (9c) w4 %= w0
  [...]

In line 2 we noticed that the mov32 would 32 bit truncate the original src
register for the div/mod operation. While for the two operations the dst
register is typically marked unknown e.g. from adjust_scalar_min_max_vals()
the src register is not, and thus verifier keeps tracking original bounds,
simplified:

  0: R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0
  0: (b7) r0 = -1
  1: R0_w=invP-1 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0
  1: (b7) r1 = -1
  2: R0_w=invP-1 R1_w=invP-1 R10=fp0
  2: (3c) w0 /= w1
  3: R0_w=invP(id=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R1_w=invP-1 R10=fp0
  3: (77) r1 >>= 32
  4: R0_w=invP(id=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R1_w=invP4294967295 R10=fp0
  4: (bf) r0 = r1
  5: R0_w=invP4294967295 R1_w=invP4294967295 R10=fp0
  5: (95) exit
  processed 6 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 0 peak_states 0 mark_read 0

Runtime result of r0 at exit is 0 instead of expected -1. Remove the
verifier mov32 src rewrite in div/mod and replace it with a jmp32 test
instead. After the fix, we result in the following code generation when
having dividend r1 and divisor r6:

  div, 64 bit:                             div, 32 bit:

   0: (b7) r6 = 8                           0: (b7) r6 = 8
   1: (b7) r1 = 8                           1: (b7) r1 = 8
   2: (55) if r6 != 0x0 goto pc+2           2: (56) if w6 != 0x0 goto pc+2
   3: (ac) w1 ^= w1                         3: (ac) w1 ^= w1
   4: (05) goto pc+1                        4: (05) goto pc+1
   5: (3f) r1 /= r6                         5: (3c) w1 /= w6
   6: (b7) r0 = 0                           6: (b7) r0 = 0
   7: (95) exit                             7: (95) exit

  mod, 64 bit:                             mod, 32 bit:

   0: (b7) r6 = 8                           0: (b7) r6 = 8
   1: (b7) r1 = 8                           1: (b7) r1 = 8
   2: (15) if r6 == 0x0 goto pc+1           2: (16) if w6 == 0x0 goto pc+1
   3: (9f) r1 %= r6                         3: (9c) w1 %= w6
   4: (b7) r0 = 0                           4: (b7) r0 = 0
   5: (95) exit                             5: (95) exit

x86 in particular can throw a 'divide error' exception for div
instruction not only for divisor being zero, but also for the case
when the quotient is too large for the designated register. For the
edx:eax and rdx:rax dividend pair it is not an issue in x86 BPF JIT
since we always zero edx (rdx). Hence really the only protection
needed is against divisor being zero.

Fixes: 68fda450a7df ("bpf: fix 32-bit divide by zero")
Co-developed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
[Salvatore Bonaccorso: This is an earlier version of the patch provided
by Daniel Borkmann which does not rely on availability of the BPF_JMP32
instruction class. This means it is not even strictly a backport of the
upstream commit mentioned but based on Daniel's and John's work to
address the issue.]
Tested-by: Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>
Signed-off-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@canonical.com>
---
 include/linux/filter.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c  | 22 +++++++++++-----------
 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h
index 5ca676d64652..954e756e8058 100644
--- a/include/linux/filter.h
+++ b/include/linux/filter.h
@@ -67,6 +67,14 @@ struct bpf_prog_aux;
 
 /* ALU ops on registers, bpf_add|sub|...: dst_reg += src_reg */
 
+#define BPF_ALU_REG(CLASS, OP, DST, SRC)			\
+	((struct bpf_insn) {					\
+		.code  = CLASS | BPF_OP(OP) | BPF_X,		\
+		.dst_reg = DST,					\
+		.src_reg = SRC,					\
+		.off   = 0,					\
+		.imm   = 0 })
+
 #define BPF_ALU64_REG(OP, DST, SRC)				\
 	((struct bpf_insn) {					\
 		.code  = BPF_ALU64 | BPF_OP(OP) | BPF_X,	\
@@ -113,6 +121,14 @@ struct bpf_prog_aux;
 
 /* Short form of mov, dst_reg = src_reg */
 
+#define BPF_MOV_REG(CLASS, DST, SRC)				\
+	((struct bpf_insn) {					\
+		.code  = CLASS | BPF_MOV | BPF_X,		\
+		.dst_reg = DST,					\
+		.src_reg = SRC,					\
+		.off   = 0,					\
+		.imm   = 0 })
+
 #define BPF_MOV64_REG(DST, SRC)					\
 	((struct bpf_insn) {					\
 		.code  = BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOV | BPF_X,		\
@@ -147,6 +163,14 @@ struct bpf_prog_aux;
 		.off   = 0,					\
 		.imm   = IMM })
 
+#define BPF_RAW_REG(insn, DST, SRC)				\
+	((struct bpf_insn) {					\
+		.code  = (insn).code,				\
+		.dst_reg = DST,					\
+		.src_reg = SRC,					\
+		.off   = (insn).off,				\
+		.imm   = (insn).imm })
+
 /* BPF_LD_IMM64 macro encodes single 'load 64-bit immediate' insn */
 #define BPF_LD_IMM64(DST, IMM)					\
 	BPF_LD_IMM64_RAW(DST, 0, IMM)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index e5ff8b0e1b41..e7d92a03f8ac 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -4844,28 +4844,28 @@ static int fixup_bpf_calls(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 		    insn->code == (BPF_ALU | BPF_DIV | BPF_X)) {
 			bool is64 = BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64;
 			struct bpf_insn mask_and_div[] = {
-				BPF_MOV32_REG(insn->src_reg, insn->src_reg),
+				BPF_MOV_REG(BPF_CLASS(insn->code), BPF_REG_AX, insn->src_reg),
 				/* Rx div 0 -> 0 */
-				BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, insn->src_reg, 0, 2),
-				BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_XOR, insn->dst_reg, insn->dst_reg),
+				BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_AX, 0, 2),
+				BPF_RAW_REG(*insn, insn->dst_reg, BPF_REG_AX),
 				BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 1),
-				*insn,
+				BPF_ALU_REG(BPF_CLASS(insn->code), BPF_XOR, insn->dst_reg, insn->dst_reg),
 			};
 			struct bpf_insn mask_and_mod[] = {
-				BPF_MOV32_REG(insn->src_reg, insn->src_reg),
+				BPF_MOV_REG(BPF_CLASS(insn->code), BPF_REG_AX, insn->src_reg),
 				/* Rx mod 0 -> Rx */
-				BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, insn->src_reg, 0, 1),
-				*insn,
+				BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_AX, 0, 1),
+				BPF_RAW_REG(*insn, insn->dst_reg, BPF_REG_AX),
 			};
 			struct bpf_insn *patchlet;
 
 			if (insn->code == (BPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_X) ||
 			    insn->code == (BPF_ALU | BPF_DIV | BPF_X)) {
-				patchlet = mask_and_div + (is64 ? 1 : 0);
-				cnt = ARRAY_SIZE(mask_and_div) - (is64 ? 1 : 0);
+				patchlet = mask_and_div;
+				cnt = ARRAY_SIZE(mask_and_div);
 			} else {
-				patchlet = mask_and_mod + (is64 ? 1 : 0);
-				cnt = ARRAY_SIZE(mask_and_mod) - (is64 ? 1 : 0);
+				patchlet = mask_and_mod;
+				cnt = ARRAY_SIZE(mask_and_mod);
 			}
 
 			new_prog = bpf_patch_insn_data(env, i + delta, patchlet, cnt);
-- 
2.30.2

[PATCH 4.14 4/4] bpf: Fix truncation handling for mod32 dst reg wrt zero

[Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo]

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

Commit 9b00f1b78809309163dda2d044d9e94a3c0248a3 upstream.

Recently noticed that when mod32 with a known src reg of 0 is performed,
then the dst register is 32-bit truncated in verifier:

  0: R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0
  0: (b7) r0 = 0
  1: R0_w=inv0 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0
  1: (b7) r1 = -1
  2: R0_w=inv0 R1_w=inv-1 R10=fp0
  2: (b4) w2 = -1
  3: R0_w=inv0 R1_w=inv-1 R2_w=inv4294967295 R10=fp0
  3: (9c) w1 %= w0
  4: R0_w=inv0 R1_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R2_w=inv4294967295 R10=fp0
  4: (b7) r0 = 1
  5: R0_w=inv1 R1_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R2_w=inv4294967295 R10=fp0
  5: (1d) if r1 == r2 goto pc+1
   R0_w=inv1 R1_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R2_w=inv4294967295 R10=fp0
  6: R0_w=inv1 R1_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R2_w=inv4294967295 R10=fp0
  6: (b7) r0 = 2
  7: R0_w=inv2 R1_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R2_w=inv4294967295 R10=fp0
  7: (95) exit
  7: R0=inv1 R1=inv(id=0,umin_value=4294967295,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R2=inv4294967295 R10=fp0
  7: (95) exit

However, as a runtime result, we get 2 instead of 1, meaning the dst
register does not contain (u32)-1 in this case. The reason is fairly
straight forward given the 0 test leaves the dst register as-is:

  # ./bpftool p d x i 23
   0: (b7) r0 = 0
   1: (b7) r1 = -1
   2: (b4) w2 = -1
   3: (16) if w0 == 0x0 goto pc+1
   4: (9c) w1 %= w0
   5: (b7) r0 = 1
   6: (1d) if r1 == r2 goto pc+1
   7: (b7) r0 = 2
   8: (95) exit

This was originally not an issue given the dst register was marked as
completely unknown (aka 64 bit unknown). However, after 468f6eafa6c4
("bpf: fix 32-bit ALU op verification") the verifier casts the register
output to 32 bit, and hence it becomes 32 bit unknown. Note that for
the case where the src register is unknown, the dst register is marked
64 bit unknown. After the fix, the register is truncated by the runtime
and the test passes:

  # ./bpftool p d x i 23
   0: (b7) r0 = 0
   1: (b7) r1 = -1
   2: (b4) w2 = -1
   3: (16) if w0 == 0x0 goto pc+2
   4: (9c) w1 %= w0
   5: (05) goto pc+1
   6: (bc) w1 = w1
   7: (b7) r0 = 1
   8: (1d) if r1 == r2 goto pc+1
   9: (b7) r0 = 2
  10: (95) exit

Semantics also match with {R,W}x mod{64,32} 0 -> {R,W}x. Invalid div
has always been {R,W}x div{64,32} 0 -> 0. Rewrites are as follows:

  mod32:                            mod64:

  (16) if w0 == 0x0 goto pc+2       (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+1
  (9c) w1 %= w0                     (9f) r1 %= r0
  (05) goto pc+1
  (bc) w1 = w1

Fixes: 468f6eafa6c4 ("bpf: fix 32-bit ALU op verification")
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Reviewed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
[Salvatore Bonaccorso: This is an earlier version based on work by
Daniel and John which does not rely on availability of the BPF_JMP32
instruction class. This means it is not even strictly a backport of the
upstream commit mentioned but based on Daniel's and John's work to
address the issue and was finalized by Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo.]
Tested-by: Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>
Signed-off-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@canonical.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 9 +++++----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index e7d92a03f8ac..9dccbffde04f 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -4845,7 +4845,7 @@ static int fixup_bpf_calls(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 			bool is64 = BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64;
 			struct bpf_insn mask_and_div[] = {
 				BPF_MOV_REG(BPF_CLASS(insn->code), BPF_REG_AX, insn->src_reg),
-				/* Rx div 0 -> 0 */
+				/* [R,W]x div 0 -> 0 */
 				BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_AX, 0, 2),
 				BPF_RAW_REG(*insn, insn->dst_reg, BPF_REG_AX),
 				BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 1),
@@ -4853,9 +4853,10 @@ static int fixup_bpf_calls(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 			};
 			struct bpf_insn mask_and_mod[] = {
 				BPF_MOV_REG(BPF_CLASS(insn->code), BPF_REG_AX, insn->src_reg),
-				/* Rx mod 0 -> Rx */
-				BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_AX, 0, 1),
+				BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_AX, 0, 1 + (is64 ? 0 : 1)),
 				BPF_RAW_REG(*insn, insn->dst_reg, BPF_REG_AX),
+				BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 1),
+				BPF_MOV32_REG(insn->dst_reg, insn->dst_reg),
 			};
 			struct bpf_insn *patchlet;
 
@@ -4865,7 +4866,7 @@ static int fixup_bpf_calls(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 				cnt = ARRAY_SIZE(mask_and_div);
 			} else {
 				patchlet = mask_and_mod;
-				cnt = ARRAY_SIZE(mask_and_mod);
+				cnt = ARRAY_SIZE(mask_and_mod) - (is64 ? 2 : 0);
 			}
 
 			new_prog = bpf_patch_insn_data(env, i + delta, patchlet, cnt);
-- 
2.30.2

Re: [PATCH 4.14 0/4] BPF fixes for CVE-2021-3444 and CVE-2021-3600

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 03:32:07PM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> The upstream changes necessary to fix these CVEs rely on the presence of JMP32,
> which is not a small backport and brings its own potential set of necessary
> follow-ups.
> 
> Daniel Borkmann, John Fastabend and Alexei Starovoitov came up with a fix
> involving the use of the AX register.
> 
> This has been tested against the test_verifier in 4.14.y tree and some tests
> specific to the two referred CVEs. The test_bpf module was also tested.
> 
> Daniel Borkmann (4):
>   bpf: Do not use ax register in interpreter on div/mod
>   bpf: fix subprog verifier bypass by div/mod by 0 exception
>   bpf: Fix 32 bit src register truncation on div/mod
>   bpf: Fix truncation handling for mod32 dst reg wrt zero
> 
>  include/linux/filter.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  kernel/bpf/core.c      | 40 +++++++++++++++-------------------------
>  kernel/bpf/verifier.c  | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>  net/core/filter.c      |  9 ++++++++-
>  4 files changed, 78 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
> 
> -- 
> 2.30.2
> 

All now queued up, thanks.

greg k-h