From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124])
	by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F40B7A046B
	for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 16:58:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 551BA2BEA;
	Thu, 27 Jun 2019 16:58:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from inbox.dpdk.org (xvm-172-178.dc0.ghst.net [95.142.172.178])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F4842B99
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 16:58:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix, from userid 33)
 id CA199A0613; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 16:58:31 +0200 (CEST)
From: bugzilla@dpdk.org
To: dev@dpdk.org
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 14:58:31 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo
X-Bugzilla-Type: new
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: DPDK
X-Bugzilla-Component: other
X-Bugzilla-Version: 19.08
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: michel@digirati.com.br
X-Bugzilla-Status: CONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: Normal
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: dev@dpdk.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_id short_desc product version rep_platform
 op_sys bug_status bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter
 target_milestone attachments.created
Message-ID: <bug-298-3@http.bugs.dpdk.org/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://bugs.dpdk.org/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [dpdk-dev] [Bug 298] BPF: eval_call() is messing bounds of return
 types different of RTE_BPF_ARG_RAW
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D298

            Bug ID: 298
           Summary: BPF: eval_call() is messing bounds of return types
                    different of RTE_BPF_ARG_RAW
           Product: DPDK
           Version: 19.08
          Hardware: All
                OS: All
            Status: CONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: Normal
         Component: other
          Assignee: dev@dpdk.org
          Reporter: michel@digirati.com.br
  Target Milestone: ---

Created attachment 42
  --> https://bugs.dpdk.org/attachment.cgi?id=3D42&action=3Dedit
Patch eval_call() in lib/librte_bpf/bpf_validate.c

eval_call() in lib/librte_bpf/bpf_validate.c calls eval_max_bound() on the =
BPF
return value for all types. This makes the verifier fails when a BPF helper
function returns a pointer that is later dereferenced. The error message wh=
en
this happens should be similar to this one: evaluate: memory boundary viola=
tion
at pc: 7.

evaluate() in the same file only calls eval_max_bound() on the parameter of=
 the
BPF program when its type is RTE_BPF_ARG_RAW. Based on this knowledge, I te=
sted
the attached patch and it works. But I'm not knowledgable enough on librte_=
bpf
to know if this is the correct way to solve this problem.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.=