[PATCH] arm64: net: bpf: don't BUG() on large shifts
Alexei Starovoitov
alexei.starovoitov at gmail.com
Wed Jan 6 14:12:49 PST 2016
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 09:31:27PM +0100, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 09:55:58AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > this one is better to be addressed in verifier instead of eBPF JITs.
> > Please reject it in check_alu_op() instead.
>
> AFAICS the eBPF verifier is not called on the eBPF filters generated by
> the BPF->eBPF conversion in net/core/filter.c, so performing this check
> only in check_alu_op() will be insufficient. So I think we'd need to
> add this check to bpf_check_classic() too. Or am I missing something?
correct. the check is needed in bpf_check_classic() too and I believe
it's ok to tighten it up in this case, since >32 shift is
invalid/undefined anyway. We can either accept it as nop or K&=31
or error. I think returning error is more user friendly long term, though
there is a small risk of rejecting previously loadable broken programs.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list