Re: [PATCH] bpf: Fix mask generation for 32-bit narrow loads of 64-bit fields

[Yonghong Song]

On 5/5/23 8:30 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 1:18 PM Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 5/2/23 9:57 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > A narrow load from a 64-bit context field results in a 64-bit load
> > > followed potentially by a 64-bit right-shift and then a bitwise AND
> > > operation to extract the relevant data.
> > >
> > > In the case of a 32-bit access, an immediate mask of 0xffffffff is used
> > > to construct a 64-bit BPP_AND operation which then sign-extends the mask
> > > value and effectively acts as a glorified no-op.
> > >
> > > Fix the mask generation so that narrow loads always perform a 32-bit AND
> > > operation.
> > >
> > > Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Andrey Ignatov <rdna@xxxxxx>
> > > Fixes: 31fd85816dbe ("bpf: permits narrower load from bpf program context fields")
> > > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the fix! You didn't miss anything. It is a bug and we did not
> > find it probably because user always use 'u64 val = ctx->u64_field' in
> > their bpf code...
> >
> > But I think the commit message can be improved. An example to show the
> > difference without and with this patch can explain the issue much better.
> >
> > Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx>
>
> If I'm reading it correctly it's indeed a bug.
> alu64(and, 0xffffFFFF) is a nop
> but it should have been
> alu32(and, 0xffffFFFF) which will clear upper 32-bit, right?

Right. This is my understanding as well.

> Would be good to have a selftest for this.