diff options
| author | Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> | 2014-01-15 06:50:07 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> | 2014-02-06 11:22:20 -0800 |
| commit | a25dda5b26eed2d9246f9dfb9e7459c935a28557 (patch) | |
| tree | 4c69e44ece10e024a76c44c943d001f12202a206 /net/core | |
| parent | 5e3b0f65e71dfa5c1a2e276f1a0df01a79aa07e3 (diff) | |
bpf: do not use reciprocal divide
[ Upstream commit aee636c4809fa54848ff07a899b326eb1f9987a2 ]
At first Jakub Zawadzki noticed that some divisions by reciprocal_divide
were not correct. (off by one in some cases)
http://www.wireshark.org/~darkjames/reciprocal-buggy.c
He could also show this with BPF:
http://www.wireshark.org/~darkjames/set-and-dump-filter-k-bug.c
The reciprocal divide in linux kernel is not generic enough,
lets remove its use in BPF, as it is not worth the pain with
current cpus.
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Reported-by: Jakub Zawadzki <darkjames-ws@darkjames.pl>
Cc: Mircea Gherzan <mgherzan@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <dxchgb@gmail.com>
Cc: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>
Cc: Matt Evans <matt@ozlabs.org>
Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Cc: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'net/core')
| -rw-r--r-- | net/core/filter.c | 30 |
1 files changed, 2 insertions, 28 deletions
diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c index 01b780856db2..ad30d626a5bd 100644 --- a/net/core/filter.c +++ b/net/core/filter.c @@ -36,7 +36,6 @@ #include <asm/uaccess.h> #include <asm/unaligned.h> #include <linux/filter.h> -#include <linux/reciprocal_div.h> #include <linux/ratelimit.h> #include <linux/seccomp.h> #include <linux/if_vlan.h> @@ -166,7 +165,7 @@ unsigned int sk_run_filter(const struct sk_buff *skb, A /= X; continue; case BPF_S_ALU_DIV_K: - A = reciprocal_divide(A, K); + A /= K; continue; case BPF_S_ALU_MOD_X: if (X == 0) @@ -553,11 +552,6 @@ int sk_chk_filter(struct sock_filter *filter, unsigned int flen) /* Some instructions need special checks */ switch (code) { case BPF_S_ALU_DIV_K: - /* check for division by zero */ - if (ftest->k == 0) - return -EINVAL; - ftest->k = reciprocal_value(ftest->k); - break; case BPF_S_ALU_MOD_K: /* check for division by zero */ if (ftest->k == 0) @@ -853,27 +847,7 @@ void sk_decode_filter(struct sock_filter *filt, struct sock_filter *to) to->code = decodes[code]; to->jt = filt->jt; to->jf = filt->jf; - - if (code == BPF_S_ALU_DIV_K) { - /* - * When loaded this rule user gave us X, which was - * translated into R = r(X). Now we calculate the - * RR = r(R) and report it back. If next time this - * value is loaded and RRR = r(RR) is calculated - * then the R == RRR will be true. - * - * One exception. X == 1 translates into R == 0 and - * we can't calculate RR out of it with r(). - */ - - if (filt->k == 0) - to->k = 1; - else - to->k = reciprocal_value(filt->k); - - BUG_ON(reciprocal_value(to->k) != filt->k); - } else - to->k = filt->k; + to->k = filt->k; } int sk_get_filter(struct sock *sk, struct sock_filter __user *ubuf, unsigned int len) |