Merge git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net

Several conflicts, seemingly all over the place.

I used Stephen Rothwell's sample resolutions for many of these, if not
just to double check my own work, so definitely the credit largely
goes to him.

The NFP conflict consisted of a bug fix (moving operations
past the rhashtable operation) while chaning the initial
argument in the function call in the moved code.

The net/dsa/master.c conflict had to do with a bug fix intermixing of
making dsa_master_set_mtu() static with the fixing of the tagging
attribute location.

cls_flower had a conflict because the dup reject fix from Or
overlapped with the addition of port range classifiction.

__set_phy_supported()'s conflict was relatively easy to resolve
because Andrew fixed it in both trees, so it was just a matter
of taking the net-next copy.  Or at least I think it was :-)

Joe Stringer's fix to the handling of netns id 0 in bpf_sk_lookup()
intermixed with changes on how the sdif and caller_net are calculated
in these code paths in net-next.

The remaining BPF conflicts were largely about the addition of the
__bpf_md_ptr stuff in 'net' overlapping with adjustments and additions
to the relevant data structure where the MD pointer macros are used.

Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

1 files changed, 89 insertions, 14 deletions

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 9584438fa2cc..ee30effdf98a 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -177,6 +177,7 @@ struct bpf_verifier_stack_elem {
 
 #define BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_INSNS	131072
 #define BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_STACK	1024
+#define BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_STATES	64
 
 #define BPF_MAP_PTR_UNPRIV	1UL
 #define BPF_MAP_PTR_POISON	((void *)((0xeB9FUL << 1) +	\
@@ -3764,6 +3765,79 @@ static void find_good_pkt_pointers(struct bpf_verifier_state *vstate,
 	}
 }
 
+/* compute branch direction of the expression "if (reg opcode val) goto target;"
+ * and return:
+ *  1 - branch will be taken and "goto target" will be executed
+ *  0 - branch will not be taken and fall-through to next insn
+ * -1 - unknown. Example: "if (reg < 5)" is unknown when register value range [0,10]
+ */
+static int is_branch_taken(struct bpf_reg_state *reg, u64 val, u8 opcode)
+{
+	if (__is_pointer_value(false, reg))
+		return -1;
+
+	switch (opcode) {
+	case BPF_JEQ:
+		if (tnum_is_const(reg->var_off))
+			return !!tnum_equals_const(reg->var_off, val);
+		break;
+	case BPF_JNE:
+		if (tnum_is_const(reg->var_off))
+			return !tnum_equals_const(reg->var_off, val);
+		break;
+	case BPF_JGT:
+		if (reg->umin_value > val)
+			return 1;
+		else if (reg->umax_value <= val)
+			return 0;
+		break;
+	case BPF_JSGT:
+		if (reg->smin_value > (s64)val)
+			return 1;
+		else if (reg->smax_value < (s64)val)
+			return 0;
+		break;
+	case BPF_JLT:
+		if (reg->umax_value < val)
+			return 1;
+		else if (reg->umin_value >= val)
+			return 0;
+		break;
+	case BPF_JSLT:
+		if (reg->smax_value < (s64)val)
+			return 1;
+		else if (reg->smin_value >= (s64)val)
+			return 0;
+		break;
+	case BPF_JGE:
+		if (reg->umin_value >= val)
+			return 1;
+		else if (reg->umax_value < val)
+			return 0;
+		break;
+	case BPF_JSGE:
+		if (reg->smin_value >= (s64)val)
+			return 1;
+		else if (reg->smax_value < (s64)val)
+			return 0;
+		break;
+	case BPF_JLE:
+		if (reg->umax_value <= val)
+			return 1;
+		else if (reg->umin_value > val)
+			return 0;
+		break;
+	case BPF_JSLE:
+		if (reg->smax_value <= (s64)val)
+			return 1;
+		else if (reg->smin_value > (s64)val)
+			return 0;
+		break;
+	}
+
+	return -1;
+}
+
 /* Adjusts the register min/max values in the case that the dst_reg is the
  * variable register that we are working on, and src_reg is a constant or we're
  * simply doing a BPF_K check.
@@ -4165,21 +4239,15 @@ static int check_cond_jmp_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 
 	dst_reg = &regs[insn->dst_reg];
 
-	/* detect if R == 0 where R was initialized to zero earlier */
-	if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_K &&
-	    (opcode == BPF_JEQ || opcode == BPF_JNE) &&
-	    dst_reg->type == SCALAR_VALUE &&
-	    tnum_is_const(dst_reg->var_off)) {
-		if ((opcode == BPF_JEQ && dst_reg->var_off.value == insn->imm) ||
-		    (opcode == BPF_JNE && dst_reg->var_off.value != insn->imm)) {
-			/* if (imm == imm) goto pc+off;
-			 * only follow the goto, ignore fall-through
-			 */
+	if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_K) {
+		int pred = is_branch_taken(dst_reg, insn->imm, opcode);
+
+		if (pred == 1) {
+			 /* only follow the goto, ignore fall-through */
 			*insn_idx += insn->off;
 			return 0;
-		} else {
-			/* if (imm != imm) goto pc+off;
-			 * only follow fall-through branch, since
+		} else if (pred == 0) {
+			/* only follow fall-through branch, since
 			 * that's where the program will go
 			 */
 			return 0;
@@ -5117,7 +5185,7 @@ static int is_state_visited(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx)
 	struct bpf_verifier_state_list *new_sl;
 	struct bpf_verifier_state_list *sl;
 	struct bpf_verifier_state *cur = env->cur_state, *new;
-	int i, j, err;
+	int i, j, err, states_cnt = 0;
 
 	sl = env->explored_states[insn_idx];
 	if (!sl)
@@ -5144,8 +5212,12 @@ static int is_state_visited(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx)
 			return 1;
 		}
 		sl = sl->next;
+		states_cnt++;
 	}
 
+	if (!env->allow_ptr_leaks && states_cnt > BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_STATES)
+		return 0;
+
 	/* there were no equivalent states, remember current one.
 	 * technically the current state is not proven to be safe yet,
 	 * but it will either reach outer most bpf_exit (which means it's safe)
@@ -5285,6 +5357,9 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 			goto process_bpf_exit;
 		}
 
+		if (signal_pending(current))
+			return -EAGAIN;
+
 		if (need_resched())
 			cond_resched();