Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:50:52 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
To: Kostya Serebryany <kcc@google.com>
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bpf: undefined shift in __bpf_prog_run
Message-ID: <20151204205051.GA67079@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com>
References: <20151204184333.GA42737@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com>
 <CACT4Y+YLV4scGXSFz=G3ACa-WE8VuT5wDGvPBV9D2Q+devxedA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151204191013.GB45508@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com>
 <20151204.142651.968075964630586979.davem@davemloft.net>
 <CACT4Y+Y6vzvHuxk=o5Y_f2qDCGW30cAOCuyCeoLtj28Xh3G1dA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151204203522.GB64517@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com>
 <CAN=P9ph-_w-ekSabGGKq-pu50enZXfGWp3k=x9zTb=Xy+ccjwA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAN=P9ph-_w-ekSabGGKq-pu50enZXfGWp3k=x9zTb=Xy+ccjwA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1737
Lines: 41

On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 12:44:09PM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <
> alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 08:48:57PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > >
> > > For example, a compiler can assume that result of left shift is larger
> > > or equal to first operand, which in turn can allow it to elide some
> > > bounds check in code, which in turn can lead to an exploit. I am not
> > > saying that this particular pattern is present in the code, what I
> > > want to say is that such undefined behaviors can lead to very
> > > unpredictable and unexpected consequences.
> >
> > Within bpf it cannot.
> > shift is not used in any memory or bounds operations.
> > so reg <<= 1234 cannot be exploited.
> >
> 
> I afraid this is not that simple.
> In C, undefined behavior applies to the entire program, not just to a
> single instruction.
> My favorite example:
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7682477/why-does-integer-overflow-on-x86-with-gcc-cause-an-infinite-loop
> Here an undefined behavior in one instruction causes *other* instructions
> to misbehave.

that's actually not related example. There compiler takes advantage of undefined
behavior which is very typical for compiler to do.
for(int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
and
for(unsigned int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
are very different loops from compiler point of view.

but that is not applicable in bpf world.
there are no loops in bpf in the first place.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/