lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Mar]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree
From
Date


On 3/19/21 12:21 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 3/19/21 3:11 AM, Piotr Krysiuk wrote:
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 12:16 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> diff --cc kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>> index 44e4ec1640f1,f9096b049cd6..000000000000
>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>> @@@ -5876,10 -6056,22 +6060,23 @@@ static int
>>> retrieve_ptr_limit(const str
>>>                  if (mask_to_left)
>>>                          *ptr_limit = MAX_BPF_STACK + off;
>>>                  else
>>>   -                      *ptr_limit = -off;
>>>   -              return 0;
>>>   +                      *ptr_limit = -off - 1;
>>>   +              return *ptr_limit >= max ? -ERANGE : 0;
>>> +       case PTR_TO_MAP_KEY:
>>> +               /* Currently, this code is not exercised as the only use
>>> +                * is bpf_for_each_map_elem() helper which requires
>>> +                * bpf_capble. The code has been tested manually for
>>> +                * future use.
>>> +                */
>>> +               if (mask_to_left) {
>>> +                       *ptr_limit = ptr_reg->umax_value + ptr_reg->off;
>>> +               } else {
>>> +                       off = ptr_reg->smin_value + ptr_reg->off;
>>> +                       *ptr_limit = ptr_reg->map_ptr->key_size - off;
>>> +               }
>>> +               return 0;
>>>
>>
>> PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE logic above looks like copy-paste of old
>> PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE
>> code from before "bpf: Fix off-by-one for area size in creating mask to
>> left" and is apparently affected by the same off-by-one, except this time
>> on "key_size" area and not "value_size".
>>
>> This needs to be fixed in the same way as we did with PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE.
>> What is the best way to proceed?
>
> Hm, not sure why PTR_TO_MAP_KEY was added by 69c087ba6225 in the first
> place, I
> presume noone expects this to be used from unprivileged as the comment
> says.
> Resolution should be to remove the PTR_TO_MAP_KEY case entirely from
> that switch
> until we have an actual user.

Alexei suggested so that we don't forget it in the future if
bpf_capable() requirement is removed.
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/c837ae55-2487-2f39-47f6-a18781dc6fcc@fb.com/

I am okay with either way, fix it or remove it.

>
> Thanks,
> Daniel

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-03-19 16:19    [W:0.075 / U:0.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site