bpf: fix bpf_tail_call() x64 JIT
[ upstream commit 90caccdd8cc0215705f18b92771b449b01e2474a ] - bpf prog_array just like all other types of bpf array accepts 32-bit index. Clarify that in the comment. - fix x64 JIT of bpf_tail_call which was incorrectly loading 8 instead of 4 bytes - tighten corresponding check in the interpreter to stay consistent The JIT bug can be triggered after introduction of BPF_F_NUMA_NODE flag in commit 96eabe7a40aa in 4.14. Before that the map_flags would stay zero and though JIT code is wrong it will check bounds correctly. Hence two fixes tags. All other JITs don't have this problem. Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Fixes: 96eabe7a40aa ("bpf: Allow selecting numa node during map creation") Fixes: b52f00e6a715 ("x86: bpf_jit: implement bpf_tail_call() helper") Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
5a802e670c
commit
361fb04812
@ -266,9 +266,9 @@ static void emit_bpf_tail_call(u8 **pprog)
|
||||
/* if (index >= array->map.max_entries)
|
||||
* goto out;
|
||||
*/
|
||||
EMIT4(0x48, 0x8B, 0x46, /* mov rax, qword ptr [rsi + 16] */
|
||||
EMIT2(0x89, 0xD2); /* mov edx, edx */
|
||||
EMIT3(0x39, 0x56, /* cmp dword ptr [rsi + 16], edx */
|
||||
offsetof(struct bpf_array, map.max_entries));
|
||||
EMIT3(0x48, 0x39, 0xD0); /* cmp rax, rdx */
|
||||
#define OFFSET1 43 /* number of bytes to jump */
|
||||
EMIT2(X86_JBE, OFFSET1); /* jbe out */
|
||||
label1 = cnt;
|
||||
|
@ -517,7 +517,7 @@ select_insn:
|
||||
struct bpf_map *map = (struct bpf_map *) (unsigned long) BPF_R2;
|
||||
struct bpf_array *array = container_of(map, struct bpf_array, map);
|
||||
struct bpf_prog *prog;
|
||||
u64 index = BPF_R3;
|
||||
u32 index = BPF_R3;
|
||||
|
||||
if (unlikely(index >= array->map.max_entries))
|
||||
goto out;
|
||||
|
Loading…
x
Reference in New Issue
Block a user