linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [PATCH 14/17] MIPS: bpf: Prevent kernel fall over for >=32bit shifts

To: 'Markos Chandras' <Markos.Chandras@imgtec.com>, "linux-mips@linux-mips.org" <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 14/17] MIPS: bpf: Prevent kernel fall over for >=32bit shifts
From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 11:08:26 +0000
Accept-language: en-GB, en-US
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@redhat.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@plumgrid.com>, "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
In-reply-to: <53A80A27.5090503@imgtec.com>
List-archive: <http://www.linux-mips.org/archives/linux-mips/>
List-help: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?Subject=help>
List-id: linux-mips <linux-mips.eddie.linux-mips.org>
List-owner: <mailto:ralf@linux-mips.org>
List-post: <mailto:linux-mips@linux-mips.org>
List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0
List-subscribe: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?subject=subscribe%20linux-mips>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?subject=unsubscribe%20linux-mips>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <1403516340-22997-1-git-send-email-markos.chandras@imgtec.com> <1403516340-22997-15-git-send-email-markos.chandras@imgtec.com> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D1726096C@AcuExch.aculab.com> <53A80A27.5090503@imgtec.com>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
Thread-index: AQHPjscu5VlynnjrkEO/YocR+d49Wpt+cUaggAAGtICAABD/IA==
Thread-topic: [PATCH 14/17] MIPS: bpf: Prevent kernel fall over for >=32bit shifts
From: Markos Chandras
> On 06/23/2014 10:44 AM, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Markos Chandras
> >> Remove BUG_ON() if the shift immediate is >=32 to avoid
> >> kernel crashes due to malicious user input. Since the micro-assembler
> >> will not allow an immediate greater or equal to 32, we will use the
> >> maximum value which is 31. This will do the correct thing on either 32-
> >> or 64-bit cores since no 64-bit instructions are being used in JIT.
> >
> > I'm not sure that bounding the shift to 31 bits 'is the correct thing'.
> > I'd have thought that emulating the large shift or masking the shift
> > to 5 bits are equally 'correct'.
> >
> > ...
> Hi David,
> 
> Since we use 32-bit registers (or rather, we ignore the top 32bits on
> MIPS64), shifting >= 32 will always result to 0.
> Alexei suggested [1] to allow large shifts and emulate them, so this
> patch aims to do that by treating >=32 shift values as 31. Please tell
> me if I got this wrong.

Shifting by 31 converts 0xffffffff to 1, not 0.

        David




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>