All 32-bit variants of BPF_FETCH (add, and, or, xor, xchg, cmpxchg)
define a 32-bit subreg and thus have zext_dst set. Their encoding,
however, uses dst_reg field as a base register, which causes
opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32() to zero-extend said base register
instead of the one the insn really defines (r0 or src_reg).
Fix by properly choosing a register being defined, similar to how
check_atomic() already does that.
Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 15694246f854..4b97e42f34cf 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -10588,6 +10588,7 @@ static int opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
int adj_idx = i + delta;
struct bpf_insn insn;
+ u8 load_reg;
insn = insns[adj_idx];
if (!aux[adj_idx].zext_dst) {
@@ -10630,9 +10631,27 @@ static int opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
if (!bpf_jit_needs_zext())
continue;
+ /* zext_dst means that we want to zero-extend whatever register
+ * the insn defines, which is dst_reg most of the time, with
+ * the notable exception of BPF_STX + BPF_ATOMIC + BPF_FETCH.
+ */
+ if (BPF_CLASS(insn.code) == BPF_STX &&
+ BPF_MODE(insn.code) == BPF_ATOMIC) {
+ /* BPF_STX + BPF_ATOMIC insns without BPF_FETCH do not
+ * define any registers, therefore zext_dst cannot be
+ * set.
+ */
+ if (WARN_ON(!(insn.imm & BPF_FETCH)))
+ return -EINVAL;
+ load_reg = insn.imm == BPF_CMPXCHG ? BPF_REG_0
+ : insn.src_reg;
+ } else {
+ load_reg = insn.dst_reg;
+ }
+
zext_patch[0] = insn;
- zext_patch[1].dst_reg = insn.dst_reg;
- zext_patch[1].src_reg = insn.dst_reg;
+ zext_patch[1].dst_reg = load_reg;
+ zext_patch[1].src_reg = load_reg;
patch = zext_patch;
patch_len = 2;
apply_patch_buffer:
--
2.29.2
