diff mbox

[4.2.y-ckt,stable] Patch "arm64: bpf: fix mod-by-zero case" has been added to staging queue

Message ID 1451949752-26112-1-git-send-email-kamal@canonical.com
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Kamal Mostafa Jan. 4, 2016, 11:22 p.m. UTC 
This is a note to let you know that I have just added a patch titled

    arm64: bpf: fix mod-by-zero case

to the linux-4.2.y-queue branch of the 4.2.y-ckt extended stable tree 
which can be found at:

    http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git/ubuntu/linux.git/log/?h=linux-4.2.y-queue

This patch is scheduled to be released in version 4.2.8-ckt1.

If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to this tree, please 
reply to this email.

For more information about the 4.2.y-ckt tree, see
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/Dev/ExtendedStable

Thanks.
-Kamal

------

From 33d1d2ab3211790d5c0ac048be4a2338f743a9a5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Zi Shen Lim <zlim.lnx@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 20:43:59 -0800
Subject: arm64: bpf: fix mod-by-zero case

commit 14e589ff4aa3f28a5424e92b6495ecb8950080f7 upstream.

Turns out in the case of modulo by zero in a BPF program:
	A = A % X;  (X == 0)
the expected behavior is to terminate with return value 0.

The bug in JIT is exposed by a new test case [1].

[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/4/499

Signed-off-by: Zi Shen Lim <zlim.lnx@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org>
Reported-by: Xi Wang <xi.wang@gmail.com>
CC: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@plumgrid.com>
Fixes: e54bcde3d69d ("arm64: eBPF JIT compiler")
Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Kamal Mostafa <kamal@canonical.com>
---
 arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 21 +++++++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

--
1.9.1
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index 9ae6f23..6217f80 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -269,6 +269,8 @@  static int build_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx)
 		break;
 	case BPF_ALU | BPF_DIV | BPF_X:
 	case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_X:
+	case BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD | BPF_X:
+	case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_X:
 	{
 		const u8 r0 = bpf2a64[BPF_REG_0];

@@ -281,16 +283,19 @@  static int build_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx)
 		check_imm26(jmp_offset);
 		emit(A64_B(jmp_offset), ctx);
 		/* else */
-		emit(A64_UDIV(is64, dst, dst, src), ctx);
+		switch (BPF_OP(code)) {
+		case BPF_DIV:
+			emit(A64_UDIV(is64, dst, dst, src), ctx);
+			break;
+		case BPF_MOD:
+			ctx->tmp_used = 1;
+			emit(A64_UDIV(is64, tmp, dst, src), ctx);
+			emit(A64_MUL(is64, tmp, tmp, src), ctx);
+			emit(A64_SUB(is64, dst, dst, tmp), ctx);
+			break;
+		}
 		break;
 	}
-	case BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD | BPF_X:
-	case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_X:
-		ctx->tmp_used = 1;
-		emit(A64_UDIV(is64, tmp, dst, src), ctx);
-		emit(A64_MUL(is64, tmp, tmp, src), ctx);
-		emit(A64_SUB(is64, dst, dst, tmp), ctx);
-		break;
 	case BPF_ALU | BPF_LSH | BPF_X:
 	case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_LSH | BPF_X:
 		emit(A64_LSLV(is64, dst, dst, src), ctx);