On 11/11, Xu Kuohai wrote:
From: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@xxxxxxxxxx>
Function __copy_map_value and zero_map_value miscalculated copy offset,
resulting in possible copy of unwanted data to user or kernel.
Fix it.
Fixes: cc48755808c6 ("bpf: Add zero_map_value to zero map value with
special fields")
Fixes: 4d7d7f69f4b1 ("bpf: Adapt copy_map_value for multiple offset case")
Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
include/linux/bpf.h | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
index 74c6f449d81e..c1bd1bd10506 100644
--- a/include/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
@@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ static inline void __copy_map_value(struct bpf_map
*map, void *dst, void *src, b
u32 next_off = map->off_arr->field_off[i];
memcpy(dst + curr_off, src + curr_off, next_off - curr_off);
- curr_off += map->off_arr->field_sz[i];
+ curr_off = next_off + map->off_arr->field_sz[i];
}
memcpy(dst + curr_off, src + curr_off, map->value_size - curr_off);
}
@@ -344,7 +344,7 @@ static inline void zero_map_value(struct bpf_map
*map, void *dst)
u32 next_off = map->off_arr->field_off[i];
memset(dst + curr_off, 0, next_off - curr_off);
- curr_off += map->off_arr->field_sz[i];
+ curr_off = next_off + map->off_arr->field_sz[i];
}
memset(dst + curr_off, 0, map->value_size - curr_off);
}
Hmm, does it mean that it currently works only for the cases where
these special fields are first/last?
Also, what about bpf-next? The same problem seem to exist there?
Might be a good idea to have some selftest to exercise this?
--
2.30.2
