From 4cabc5b186b5427b9ee5a7495172542af105f02b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Borkmann Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 00:00:21 +0200 Subject: bpf: fix mixed signed/unsigned derived min/max value bounds Edward reported that there's an issue in min/max value bounds tracking when signed and unsigned compares both provide hints on limits when having unknown variables. E.g. a program such as the following should have been rejected: 0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 1: (bf) r2 = r10 2: (07) r2 += -8 3: (18) r1 = 0xffff8a94cda93400 5: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1 6: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+7 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp 7: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = -8 8: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 -16) 9: (b7) r2 = -1 10: (2d) if r1 > r2 goto pc+3 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=0 R2=imm-1,max_value=18446744073709551615,min_align=1 R10=fp 11: (65) if r1 s> 0x1 goto pc+2 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=0,max_value=1 R2=imm-1,max_value=18446744073709551615,min_align=1 R10=fp 12: (0f) r0 += r1 13: (72) *(u8 *)(r0 +0) = 0 R0=map_value_adj(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=1 R1=inv,min_value=0,max_value=1 R2=imm-1,max_value=18446744073709551615,min_align=1 R10=fp 14: (b7) r0 = 0 15: (95) exit What happens is that in the first part ... 8: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 -16) 9: (b7) r2 = -1 10: (2d) if r1 > r2 goto pc+3 ... r1 carries an unsigned value, and is compared as unsigned against a register carrying an immediate. Verifier deduces in reg_set_min_max() that since the compare is unsigned and operation is greater than (>), that in the fall-through/false case, r1's minimum bound must be 0 and maximum bound must be r2. Latter is larger than the bound and thus max value is reset back to being 'invalid' aka BPF_REGISTER_MAX_RANGE. Thus, r1 state is now 'R1=inv,min_value=0'. The subsequent test ... 11: (65) if r1 s> 0x1 goto pc+2 ... is a signed compare of r1 with immediate value 1. Here, verifier deduces in reg_set_min_max() that since the compare is signed this time and operation is greater than (>), that in the fall-through/false case, we can deduce that r1's maximum bound must be 1, meaning with prior test, we result in r1 having the following state: R1=inv,min_value=0,max_value=1. Given that the actual value this holds is -8, the bounds are wrongly deduced. When this is being added to r0 which holds the map_value(_adj) type, then subsequent store access in above case will go through check_mem_access() which invokes check_map_access_adj(), that will then probe whether the map memory is in bounds based on the min_value and max_value as well as access size since the actual unknown value is min_value <= x <= max_value; commit fce366a9dd0d ("bpf, verifier: fix alu ops against map_value{, _adj} register types") provides some more explanation on the semantics. It's worth to note in this context that in the current code, min_value and max_value tracking are used for two things, i) dynamic map value access via check_map_access_adj() and since commit 06c1c049721a ("bpf: allow helpers access to variable memory") ii) also enforced at check_helper_mem_access() when passing a memory address (pointer to packet, map value, stack) and length pair to a helper and the length in this case is an unknown value defining an access range through min_value/max_value in that case. The min_value/max_value tracking is /not/ used in the direct packet access case to track ranges. However, the issue also affects case ii), for example, the following crafted program based on the same principle must be rejected as well: 0: (b7) r2 = 0 1: (bf) r3 = r10 2: (07) r3 += -512 3: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = -8 4: (79) r4 = *(u64 *)(r10 -16) 5: (b7) r6 = -1 6: (2d) if r4 > r6 goto pc+5 R1=ctx R2=imm0,min_value=0,max_value=0,min_align=2147483648 R3=fp-512 R4=inv,min_value=0 R6=imm-1,max_value=18446744073709551615,min_align=1 R10=fp 7: (65) if r4 s> 0x1 goto pc+4 R1=ctx R2=imm0,min_value=0,max_value=0,min_align=2147483648 R3=fp-512 R4=inv,min_value=0,max_value=1 R6=imm-1,max_value=18446744073709551615,min_align=1 R10=fp 8: (07) r4 += 1 9: (b7) r5 = 0 10: (6a) *(u16 *)(r10 -512) = 0 11: (85) call bpf_skb_load_bytes#26 12: (b7) r0 = 0 13: (95) exit Meaning, while we initialize the max_value stack slot that the verifier thinks we access in the [1,2] range, in reality we pass -7 as length which is interpreted as u32 in the helper. Thus, this issue is relevant also for the case of helper ranges. Resetting both bounds in check_reg_overflow() in case only one of them exceeds limits is also not enough as similar test can be created that uses values which are within range, thus also here learned min value in r1 is incorrect when mixed with later signed test to create a range: 0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 1: (bf) r2 = r10 2: (07) r2 += -8 3: (18) r1 = 0xffff880ad081fa00 5: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1 6: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+7 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp 7: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = -8 8: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 -16) 9: (b7) r2 = 2 10: (3d) if r2 >= r1 goto pc+3 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=3 R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R10=fp 11: (65) if r1 s> 0x4 goto pc+2 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=3,max_value=4 R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R10=fp 12: (0f) r0 += r1 13: (72) *(u8 *)(r0 +0) = 0 R0=map_value_adj(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=3,max_value=4 R1=inv,min_value=3,max_value=4 R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R10=fp 14: (b7) r0 = 0 15: (95) exit This leaves us with two options for fixing this: i) to invalidate all prior learned information once we switch signed context, ii) to track min/max signed and unsigned boundaries separately as done in [0]. (Given latter introduces major changes throughout the whole verifier, it's rather net-next material, thus this patch follows option i), meaning we can derive bounds either from only signed tests or only unsigned tests.) There is still the case of adjust_reg_min_max_vals(), where we adjust bounds on ALU operations, meaning programs like the following where boundaries on the reg get mixed in context later on when bounds are merged on the dst reg must get rejected, too: 0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 1: (bf) r2 = r10 2: (07) r2 += -8 3: (18) r1 = 0xffff89b2bf87ce00 5: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1 6: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+6 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp 7: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = -8 8: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 -16) 9: (b7) r2 = 2 10: (3d) if r2 >= r1 goto pc+2 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=3 R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R10=fp 11: (b7) r7 = 1 12: (65) if r7 s> 0x0 goto pc+2 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=3 R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R7=imm1,max_value=0 R10=fp 13: (b7) r0 = 0 14: (95) exit from 12 to 15: R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=3 R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R7=imm1,min_value=1 R10=fp 15: (0f) r7 += r1 16: (65) if r7 s> 0x4 goto pc+2 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=3 R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R7=inv,min_value=4,max_value=4 R10=fp 17: (0f) r0 += r7 18: (72) *(u8 *)(r0 +0) = 0 R0=map_value_adj(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=4,max_value=4 R1=inv,min_value=3 R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R7=inv,min_value=4,max_value=4 R10=fp 19: (b7) r0 = 0 20: (95) exit Meaning, in adjust_reg_min_max_vals() we must also reset range values on the dst when src/dst registers have mixed signed/ unsigned derived min/max value bounds with one unbounded value as otherwise they can be added together deducing false boundaries. Once both boundaries are established from either ALU ops or compare operations w/o mixing signed/unsigned insns, then they can safely be added to other regs also having both boundaries established. Adding regs with one unbounded side to a map value where the bounded side has been learned w/o mixing ops is possible, but the resulting map value won't recover from that, meaning such op is considered invalid on the time of actual access. Invalid bounds are set on the dst reg in case i) src reg, or ii) in case dst reg already had them. The only way to recover would be to perform i) ALU ops but only 'add' is allowed on map value types or ii) comparisons, but these are disallowed on pointers in case they span a range. This is fine as only BPF_JEQ and BPF_JNE may be performed on PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL registers which potentially turn them into PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE type depending on the branch, so only here min/max value cannot be invalidated for them. In terms of state pruning, value_from_signed is considered as well in states_equal() when dealing with adjusted map values. With regards to breaking existing programs, there is a small risk, but use-cases are rather quite narrow where this could occur and mixing compares probably unlikely. Joint work with Josef and Edward. [0] https://lists.iovisor.org/pipermail/iovisor-dev/2017-June/000822.html Fixes: 484611357c19 ("bpf: allow access into map value arrays") Reported-by: Edward Cree Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Edward Cree Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik Signed-off-by: David S. Miller --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 108 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 94 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) (limited to 'kernel/bpf') diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 6a86723c5b64..af9e84a4944e 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -504,6 +504,7 @@ static void reset_reg_range_values(struct bpf_reg_state *regs, u32 regno) { regs[regno].min_value = BPF_REGISTER_MIN_RANGE; regs[regno].max_value = BPF_REGISTER_MAX_RANGE; + regs[regno].value_from_signed = false; regs[regno].min_align = 0; } @@ -777,12 +778,13 @@ static int check_ctx_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx, int off, return -EACCES; } -static bool is_pointer_value(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno) +static bool __is_pointer_value(bool allow_ptr_leaks, + const struct bpf_reg_state *reg) { - if (env->allow_ptr_leaks) + if (allow_ptr_leaks) return false; - switch (env->cur_state.regs[regno].type) { + switch (reg->type) { case UNKNOWN_VALUE: case CONST_IMM: return false; @@ -791,6 +793,11 @@ static bool is_pointer_value(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno) } } +static bool is_pointer_value(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno) +{ + return __is_pointer_value(env->allow_ptr_leaks, &env->cur_state.regs[regno]); +} + static int check_pkt_ptr_alignment(const struct bpf_reg_state *reg, int off, int size, bool strict) { @@ -1832,10 +1839,24 @@ static void adjust_reg_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, dst_align = dst_reg->min_align; /* We don't know anything about what was done to this register, mark it - * as unknown. + * as unknown. Also, if both derived bounds came from signed/unsigned + * mixed compares and one side is unbounded, we cannot really do anything + * with them as boundaries cannot be trusted. Thus, arithmetic of two + * regs of such kind will get invalidated bounds on the dst side. */ - if (min_val == BPF_REGISTER_MIN_RANGE && - max_val == BPF_REGISTER_MAX_RANGE) { + if ((min_val == BPF_REGISTER_MIN_RANGE && + max_val == BPF_REGISTER_MAX_RANGE) || + (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X && + ((min_val != BPF_REGISTER_MIN_RANGE && + max_val == BPF_REGISTER_MAX_RANGE) || + (min_val == BPF_REGISTER_MIN_RANGE && + max_val != BPF_REGISTER_MAX_RANGE) || + (dst_reg->min_value != BPF_REGISTER_MIN_RANGE && + dst_reg->max_value == BPF_REGISTER_MAX_RANGE) || + (dst_reg->min_value == BPF_REGISTER_MIN_RANGE && + dst_reg->max_value != BPF_REGISTER_MAX_RANGE)) && + regs[insn->dst_reg].value_from_signed != + regs[insn->src_reg].value_from_signed)) { reset_reg_range_values(regs, insn->dst_reg); return; } @@ -2023,6 +2044,7 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn) regs[insn->dst_reg].max_value = insn->imm; regs[insn->dst_reg].min_value = insn->imm; regs[insn->dst_reg].min_align = calc_align(insn->imm); + regs[insn->dst_reg].value_from_signed = false; } } else if (opcode > BPF_END) { @@ -2198,40 +2220,63 @@ static void reg_set_min_max(struct bpf_reg_state *true_reg, struct bpf_reg_state *false_reg, u64 val, u8 opcode) { + bool value_from_signed = true; + bool is_range = true; + switch (opcode) { case BPF_JEQ: /* If this is false then we know nothing Jon Snow, but if it is * true then we know for sure. */ true_reg->max_value = true_reg->min_value = val; + is_range = false; break; case BPF_JNE: /* If this is true we know nothing Jon Snow, but if it is false * we know the value for sure; */ false_reg->max_value = false_reg->min_value = val; + is_range = false; break; case BPF_JGT: - /* Unsigned comparison, the minimum value is 0. */ - false_reg->min_value = 0; + value_from_signed = false; /* fallthrough */ case BPF_JSGT: + if (true_reg->value_from_signed != value_from_signed) + reset_reg_range_values(true_reg, 0); + if (false_reg->value_from_signed != value_from_signed) + reset_reg_range_values(false_reg, 0); + if (opcode == BPF_JGT) { + /* Unsigned comparison, the minimum value is 0. */ + false_reg->min_value = 0; + } /* If this is false then we know the maximum val is val, * otherwise we know the min val is val+1. */ false_reg->max_value = val; + false_reg->value_from_signed = value_from_signed; true_reg->min_value = val + 1; + true_reg->value_from_signed = value_from_signed; break; case BPF_JGE: - /* Unsigned comparison, the minimum value is 0. */ - false_reg->min_value = 0; + value_from_signed = false; /* fallthrough */ case BPF_JSGE: + if (true_reg->value_from_signed != value_from_signed) + reset_reg_range_values(true_reg, 0); + if (false_reg->value_from_signed != value_from_signed) + reset_reg_range_values(false_reg, 0); + if (opcode == BPF_JGE) { + /* Unsigned comparison, the minimum value is 0. */ + false_reg->min_value = 0; + } /* If this is false then we know the maximum value is val - 1, * otherwise we know the mimimum value is val. */ false_reg->max_value = val - 1; + false_reg->value_from_signed = value_from_signed; true_reg->min_value = val; + true_reg->value_from_signed = value_from_signed; break; default: break; @@ -2239,6 +2284,12 @@ static void reg_set_min_max(struct bpf_reg_state *true_reg, check_reg_overflow(false_reg); check_reg_overflow(true_reg); + if (is_range) { + if (__is_pointer_value(false, false_reg)) + reset_reg_range_values(false_reg, 0); + if (__is_pointer_value(false, true_reg)) + reset_reg_range_values(true_reg, 0); + } } /* Same as above, but for the case that dst_reg is a CONST_IMM reg and src_reg @@ -2248,41 +2299,64 @@ static void reg_set_min_max_inv(struct bpf_reg_state *true_reg, struct bpf_reg_state *false_reg, u64 val, u8 opcode) { + bool value_from_signed = true; + bool is_range = true; + switch (opcode) { case BPF_JEQ: /* If this is false then we know nothing Jon Snow, but if it is * true then we know for sure. */ true_reg->max_value = true_reg->min_value = val; + is_range = false; break; case BPF_JNE: /* If this is true we know nothing Jon Snow, but if it is false * we know the value for sure; */ false_reg->max_value = false_reg->min_value = val; + is_range = false; break; case BPF_JGT: - /* Unsigned comparison, the minimum value is 0. */ - true_reg->min_value = 0; + value_from_signed = false; /* fallthrough */ case BPF_JSGT: + if (true_reg->value_from_signed != value_from_signed) + reset_reg_range_values(true_reg, 0); + if (false_reg->value_from_signed != value_from_signed) + reset_reg_range_values(false_reg, 0); + if (opcode == BPF_JGT) { + /* Unsigned comparison, the minimum value is 0. */ + true_reg->min_value = 0; + } /* * If this is false, then the val is <= the register, if it is * true the register <= to the val. */ false_reg->min_value = val; + false_reg->value_from_signed = value_from_signed; true_reg->max_value = val - 1; + true_reg->value_from_signed = value_from_signed; break; case BPF_JGE: - /* Unsigned comparison, the minimum value is 0. */ - true_reg->min_value = 0; + value_from_signed = false; /* fallthrough */ case BPF_JSGE: + if (true_reg->value_from_signed != value_from_signed) + reset_reg_range_values(true_reg, 0); + if (false_reg->value_from_signed != value_from_signed) + reset_reg_range_values(false_reg, 0); + if (opcode == BPF_JGE) { + /* Unsigned comparison, the minimum value is 0. */ + true_reg->min_value = 0; + } /* If this is false then constant < register, if it is true then * the register < constant. */ false_reg->min_value = val + 1; + false_reg->value_from_signed = value_from_signed; true_reg->max_value = val; + true_reg->value_from_signed = value_from_signed; break; default: break; @@ -2290,6 +2364,12 @@ static void reg_set_min_max_inv(struct bpf_reg_state *true_reg, check_reg_overflow(false_reg); check_reg_overflow(true_reg); + if (is_range) { + if (__is_pointer_value(false, false_reg)) + reset_reg_range_values(false_reg, 0); + if (__is_pointer_value(false, true_reg)) + reset_reg_range_values(true_reg, 0); + } } static void mark_map_reg(struct bpf_reg_state *regs, u32 regno, u32 id, -- cgit v1.3-14-g43fede From 9305706c2e808ae59f1eb201867f82f1ddf6d7a6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Edward Cree Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 14:37:34 +0100 Subject: bpf/verifier: fix min/max handling in BPF_SUB We have to subtract the src max from the dst min, and vice-versa, since (e.g.) the smallest result comes from the largest subtrahend. Fixes: 484611357c19 ("bpf: allow access into map value arrays") Signed-off-by: Edward Cree Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: David S. Miller --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 21 +++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) (limited to 'kernel/bpf') diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index af9e84a4944e..664d93972373 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -1865,10 +1865,12 @@ static void adjust_reg_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, * do our normal operations to the register, we need to set the values * to the min/max since they are undefined. */ - if (min_val == BPF_REGISTER_MIN_RANGE) - dst_reg->min_value = BPF_REGISTER_MIN_RANGE; - if (max_val == BPF_REGISTER_MAX_RANGE) - dst_reg->max_value = BPF_REGISTER_MAX_RANGE; + if (opcode != BPF_SUB) { + if (min_val == BPF_REGISTER_MIN_RANGE) + dst_reg->min_value = BPF_REGISTER_MIN_RANGE; + if (max_val == BPF_REGISTER_MAX_RANGE) + dst_reg->max_value = BPF_REGISTER_MAX_RANGE; + } switch (opcode) { case BPF_ADD: @@ -1879,10 +1881,17 @@ static void adjust_reg_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, dst_reg->min_align = min(src_align, dst_align); break; case BPF_SUB: + /* If one of our values was at the end of our ranges, then the + * _opposite_ value in the dst_reg goes to the end of our range. + */ + if (min_val == BPF_REGISTER_MIN_RANGE) + dst_reg->max_value = BPF_REGISTER_MAX_RANGE; + if (max_val == BPF_REGISTER_MAX_RANGE) + dst_reg->min_value = BPF_REGISTER_MIN_RANGE; if (dst_reg->min_value != BPF_REGISTER_MIN_RANGE) - dst_reg->min_value -= min_val; + dst_reg->min_value -= max_val; if (dst_reg->max_value != BPF_REGISTER_MAX_RANGE) - dst_reg->max_value -= max_val; + dst_reg->max_value -= min_val; dst_reg->min_align = min(src_align, dst_align); break; case BPF_MUL: -- cgit v1.3-14-g43fede From 89b096898a8450b0a5b97d521e000ae9f94f81f9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Borkmann Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 21:02:46 +0200 Subject: bpf: don't indicate success when copy_from_user fails err in bpf_prog_get_info_by_fd() still holds 0 at that time from prior check_uarg_tail_zero() check. Explicitly return -EFAULT instead, so user space can be notified of buggy behavior. Fixes: 1e2709769086 ("bpf: Add BPF_OBJ_GET_INFO_BY_FD") Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau Signed-off-by: David S. Miller --- kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'kernel/bpf') diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c index 045646da97cc..84bb39975ad4 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c @@ -1289,7 +1289,7 @@ static int bpf_prog_get_info_by_fd(struct bpf_prog *prog, info_len = min_t(u32, sizeof(info), info_len); if (copy_from_user(&info, uinfo, info_len)) - return err; + return -EFAULT; info.type = prog->type; info.id = prog->aux->id; -- cgit v1.3-14-g43fede From 9975a54b3c9ecf029cbf5dd7a8c9701b1d74029e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Borkmann Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:05:25 +0200 Subject: bpf: fix bpf_prog_get_info_by_fd to dump correct xlated_prog_len bpf_prog_size(prog->len) is not the correct length we want to dump back to user space. The code in bpf_prog_get_info_by_fd() uses this to copy prog->insnsi to user space, but bpf_prog_size(prog->len) also includes the size of struct bpf_prog itself plus program instructions and is usually used either in context of accounting or for bpf_prog_alloc() et al, thus we copy out of bounds in bpf_prog_get_info_by_fd() potentially. Use the correct bpf_prog_insn_size() instead. Fixes: 1e2709769086 ("bpf: Add BPF_OBJ_GET_INFO_BY_FD") Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau Signed-off-by: David S. Miller --- kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'kernel/bpf') diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c index 84bb39975ad4..6c772adabad2 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c @@ -1312,7 +1312,7 @@ static int bpf_prog_get_info_by_fd(struct bpf_prog *prog, } ulen = info.xlated_prog_len; - info.xlated_prog_len = bpf_prog_size(prog->len); + info.xlated_prog_len = bpf_prog_insn_size(prog); if (info.xlated_prog_len && ulen) { uinsns = u64_to_user_ptr(info.xlated_prog_insns); ulen = min_t(u32, info.xlated_prog_len, ulen); -- cgit v1.3-14-g43fede