Alan Jowett comments

Results 37 comments of


                                            Alan Jowett

uBPF should reject call instructions with src != 0

If code using this form of the instruction is passed to uBPF the behavior may be incorrect.

uBPF should reject call instructions with src != 0

Fixed

bpf_conformance/arm64 should run with address sanitizer enabled

Blocked on availability of an ARM64 self-hosted runner.

uBPF bounds_check doesn't account for access to packet data

Note: This also misses cases where we access memory retrieved from a map.

uBPF bounds_check doesn't account for access to packet data

The model we are taking with Ebpf-on-Windows is to define all the inputs to types of eBPF programs and the signature of helper functions and have that provided to the...

uBPF bounds_check doesn't account for access to packet data

Yep, Prevail tracks each BPF register and evaluates the control flow graph to determine safety. Not an expert on this myself, but based on my understanding a formal verification.

uBPF bounds_check doesn't account for access to packet data

This was fixed with the addition of the ubpf_register_data_bounds_check function.

Integer overflow in bounds_check

Thanks @joachimff. Would it be possible for you to create a PR with this change?

Failed to load code: bad relocation type 1

@pchaigno is there a reference doc for the relocation types in BPF ELF format? Something similar to [AMD64 ABI](http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/elf/x86_64-abi-0.99.pdf)? I was planning on adding support for maps and other type...

Failed to load code: bad relocation type 1

Something doesn't match here. lllvm defines only 2 relocation types for EBPF: R_BPF_64_64 = 1 R_BPF_64_32 = 10 See: [llvm/BinaryFormat/ELFRelocs/BPF.def](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/include/llvm/BinaryFormat/ELFRelocs/BPF.def) Where does the type 2 in the code come from?...