This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled bpf: Fix bpf_strtol and bpf_strtoul helpers for 32bit to the 6.10-stable tree which can be found at: http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary The filename of the patch is: bpf-fix-bpf_strtol-and-bpf_strtoul-helpers-for-32bit.patch and it can be found in the queue-6.10 subdirectory. If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it. commit 7aa474794e6a0278b0e1c9b5f12174b410d4dce2 Author: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri Sep 13 21:17:46 2024 +0200 bpf: Fix bpf_strtol and bpf_strtoul helpers for 32bit [ Upstream commit cfe69c50b05510b24e26ccb427c7cc70beafd6c1 ] The bpf_strtol() and bpf_strtoul() helpers are currently broken on 32bit: The argument type ARG_PTR_TO_LONG is BPF-side "long", not kernel-side "long" and therefore always considered fixed 64bit no matter if 64 or 32bit underlying architecture. This contract breaks in case of the two mentioned helpers since their BPF_CALL definition for the helpers was added with {unsigned,}long *res. Meaning, the transition from BPF-side "long" (BPF program) to kernel-side "long" (BPF helper) breaks here. Both helpers call __bpf_strtoll() with "long long" correctly, but later assigning the result into 32-bit "*(long *)" on 32bit architectures. From a BPF program point of view, this means upper bits will be seen as uninitialised. Therefore, fix both BPF_CALL signatures to {s,u}64 types to fix this situation. Now, changing also uapi/bpf.h helper documentation which generates bpf_helper_defs.h for BPF programs is tricky: Changing signatures there to __{s,u}64 would trigger compiler warnings (incompatible pointer types passing 'long *' to parameter of type '__s64 *' (aka 'long long *')) for existing BPF programs. Leaving the signatures as-is would be fine as from BPF program point of view it is still BPF-side "long" and thus equivalent to __{s,u}64 on 64 or 32bit underlying architectures. Note that bpf_strtol() and bpf_strtoul() are the only helpers with this issue. Fixes: d7a4cb9b6705 ("bpf: Introduce bpf_strtol and bpf_strtoul helpers") Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/481fcec8-c12c-9abb-8ecb-76c71c009959@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240913191754.13290-1-daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c index 7268370600f6e..ffabd06be1240 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c @@ -517,7 +517,7 @@ static int __bpf_strtoll(const char *buf, size_t buf_len, u64 flags, } BPF_CALL_4(bpf_strtol, const char *, buf, size_t, buf_len, u64, flags, - long *, res) + s64 *, res) { long long _res; int err; @@ -542,7 +542,7 @@ const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_strtol_proto = { }; BPF_CALL_4(bpf_strtoul, const char *, buf, size_t, buf_len, u64, flags, - unsigned long *, res) + u64 *, res) { unsigned long long _res; bool is_negative;