4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[ upstream commit 7891a87efc7116590eaba57acc3c422487802c6f ]
The following snippet was throwing an 'unknown opcode cc' warning
in BPF interpreter:
0: (18) r0 = 0x0
2: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = r0
3: (cc) (u32) r0 s>>= (u32) r0
4: (95) exit
Although a number of JITs do support BPF_ALU | BPF_ARSH | BPF_{K,X}
generation, not all of them do and interpreter does neither. We can
leave existing ones and implement it later in bpf-next for the
remaining ones, but reject this properly in verifier for the time
being.
Fixes: 17a5267067f3 ("bpf: verifier (add verifier core)")
Reported-by: syzbot+93c4904c5c70348a6890@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -1165,6 +1165,11 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct verifier_
return -EINVAL;
}
+ if (opcode == BPF_ARSH && BPF_CLASS(insn->code) != BPF_ALU64) {
+ verbose("BPF_ARSH not supported for 32 bit ALU\n");
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
if ((opcode == BPF_LSH || opcode == BPF_RSH ||
opcode == BPF_ARSH) && BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_K) {
int size = BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64 ? 64 : 32;