Commit a81869f9 authored by Zi Shen Lim's avatar Zi Shen Lim Committed by Kamal Mostafa

arm64: bpf: fix mod-by-zero case

commit 14e589ff 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/2015/11/4/499Signed-off-by: default avatarZi Shen Lim <zlim.lnx@gmail.com>
Reported-by: default avatarYang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org>
Reported-by: default avatarXi Wang <xi.wang@gmail.com>
CC: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@plumgrid.com>
Fixes: e54bcde3 ("arm64: eBPF JIT compiler")
Signed-off-by: default avatarCatalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarKamal Mostafa <kamal@canonical.com>
parent 455419a7
......@@ -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 */
switch (BPF_OP(code)) {
case BPF_DIV:
emit(A64_UDIV(is64, dst, dst, src), ctx);
break;
}
case BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD | BPF_X:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_X:
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_LSH | BPF_X:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_LSH | BPF_X:
emit(A64_LSLV(is64, dst, dst, src), ctx);
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment