FAILED: patch "[PATCH] bpf: Make remote_port field in struct bpf_sk_lookup 16-bit" failed to apply to 5.4-stable tree

PATCH [email protected] 1 participant 1 message Apr 11, 2022

Subsystems (4)

Networking Stable branch BPF BPF networking

lore

Share & tools

lore

[email protected]

author maintainer

2022-04-11 11:22 UTC #0 lore raw

The patch below does not apply to the 5.4-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <[email protected]>.

thanks,

greg k-h

------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------

From 9a69e2b385f443f244a7e8b8bcafe5ccfb0866b4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jakub Sitnicki <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 19:43:32 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] bpf: Make remote_port field in struct bpf_sk_lookup 16-bit
wide

remote_port is another case of a BPF context field documented as a 32-bit value in network byte order for which the BPF context access converter generates a load of a zero-padded 16-bit integer in network byte order.

First such case was dst_port in bpf_sock which got addressed in commit 4421a582718a ("bpf: Make dst_port field in struct bpf_sock 16-bit wide").

Loading 4-bytes from the remote_port offset and converting the value with bpf_ntohl() leads to surprising results, as the expected value is shifted by 16 bits.

Reduce the confusion by splitting the field in two - a 16-bit field holding a big-endian integer, and a 16-bit zero-padding anonymous field that follows it.

Signed-off-by Jakub Sitnicki <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]>

Link https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected] open here

include/uapi/linux/bpf.h +2 -1

index a7f0ddedac1f..afe3d0d7f5f2 100644
@@ -6453,7 +6453,8 @@ struct bpf_sk_lookup {
 	__u32 protocol;		/* IP protocol (IPPROTO_TCP, IPPROTO_UDP) */
 	__u32 remote_ip4;	/* Network byte order */
 	__u32 remote_ip6[4];	/* Network byte order */
-	__u32 remote_port;	/* Network byte order */
+	__be16 remote_port;	/* Network byte order */
+	__u16 :16;		/* Zero padding */
 	__u32 local_ip4;	/* Network byte order */
 	__u32 local_ip6[4];	/* Network byte order */
 	__u32 local_port;	/* Host byte order */

net/bpf/test_run.c +2 -2

index cb150f756f3d..f08034500813 100644
@@ -1147,7 +1147,7 @@ int bpf_prog_test_run_sk_lookup(struct bpf_prog *prog, const union bpf_attr *kat
 	if (!range_is_zero(user_ctx, offsetofend(typeof(*user_ctx), local_port), sizeof(*user_ctx)))
 		goto out;
 
-	if (user_ctx->local_port > U16_MAX || user_ctx->remote_port > U16_MAX) {
+	if (user_ctx->local_port > U16_MAX) {
 		ret = -ERANGE;
 		goto out;
 	}

@@ -1155,7 +1155,7 @@ int bpf_prog_test_run_sk_lookup(struct bpf_prog *prog, const union bpf_attr *kat
 	ctx.family = (u16)user_ctx->family;
 	ctx.protocol = (u16)user_ctx->protocol;
 	ctx.dport = (u16)user_ctx->local_port;
-	ctx.sport = (__force __be16)user_ctx->remote_port;
+	ctx.sport = user_ctx->remote_port;
 
 	switch (ctx.family) {
 	case AF_INET:

net/core/filter.c +2 -1

index 99a05199a806..83f06d3b2c52 100644
@@ -10843,7 +10843,8 @@ static bool sk_lookup_is_valid_access(int off, int size,
 	case bpf_ctx_range(struct bpf_sk_lookup, local_ip4):
 	case bpf_ctx_range_till(struct bpf_sk_lookup, remote_ip6[0], remote_ip6[3]):
 	case bpf_ctx_range_till(struct bpf_sk_lookup, local_ip6[0], local_ip6[3]):
-	case bpf_ctx_range(struct bpf_sk_lookup, remote_port):
+	case offsetof(struct bpf_sk_lookup, remote_port) ...
+	     offsetof(struct bpf_sk_lookup, local_ip4) - 1:
 	case bpf_ctx_range(struct bpf_sk_lookup, local_port):
 	case bpf_ctx_range(struct bpf_sk_lookup, ingress_ifindex):
 		bpf_ctx_record_field_size(info, sizeof(__u32));