Code: static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn)
{
	struct bpf_reg_state *regs = cur_regs(env);
	u8 opcode = BPF_OP(insn->code);
	int err;

	if (opcode == BPF_END || opcode == BPF_NEG) {
		if (opcode == BPF_NEG) {
			if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) != 0 ||
			    insn->src_reg != BPF_REG_0 ||
			    insn->off != 0 || insn->imm != 0) {
				verbose(env, "BPF_NEG uses reserved fields\n");
				return -EINVAL;
			}
		} else {
			if (insn->src_reg != BPF_REG_0 || insn->off != 0 ||
			    (insn->imm != 16 && insn->imm != 32 && insn->imm != 64) ||
			    BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64) {
				verbose(env, "BPF_END uses reserved fields\n");
				return -EINVAL;
			}
		}

		/* check src operand */
		err = check_reg_arg(env, insn->dst_reg, SRC_OP);
		if (err)
			return err;

		if (is_pointer_value(env, insn->dst_reg)) {
			verbose(env, "R%d pointer arithmetic prohibited\n",
				insn->dst_reg);
			return -EACCES;
		}

		/* check dest operand */
		err = check_reg_arg(env, insn->dst_reg, DST_OP);
		if (err)
			return err;

	} else if (opcode == BPF_MOV) {

		if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X) {
			if (insn->imm != 0 || insn->off != 0) {
				verbose(env, "BPF_MOV uses reserved fields\n");
				return -EINVAL;
			}

			/* check src operand */
			err = check_reg_arg(env, insn->src_reg, SRC_OP);
			if (err)
				return err;
		} else {
			if (insn->src_reg != BPF_REG_0 || insn->off != 0) {
				verbose(env, "BPF_MOV uses reserved fields\n");
				return -EINVAL;
			}
		}

		/* check dest operand */
		err = check_reg_arg(env, insn->dst_reg, DST_OP);
		if (err)
			return err;

		if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X) {
			if (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64) {
				/* case: R1 = R2
				 * copy register state to dest reg
				 */
				regs[insn->dst_reg] = regs[insn->src_reg];
				regs[insn->dst_reg].live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN;
			} else {
				/* R1 = (u32) R2 */
				if (is_pointer_value(env, insn->src_reg)) {
					verbose(env,
						"R%d partial copy of pointer\n",
						insn->src_reg);
					return -EACCES;
				}
				mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, insn->dst_reg);
				/* high 32 bits are known zero. */
				regs[insn->dst_reg].var_off = tnum_cast(
						regs[insn->dst_reg].var_off, 4);
				__update_reg_bounds(&regs[insn->dst_reg]);
			}
		} else {
			/* case: R = imm
 			 * remember the value we stored into this reg
 			 */
 			regs[insn->dst_reg].type = SCALAR_VALUE;
			__mark_reg_known(regs + insn->dst_reg, insn->imm);
 		}
 
 	} else if (opcode > BPF_END) {
		verbose(env, "invalid BPF_ALU opcode %x\n", opcode);
		return -EINVAL;

	} else {	/* all other ALU ops: and, sub, xor, add, ... */

		if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X) {
			if (insn->imm != 0 || insn->off != 0) {
				verbose(env, "BPF_ALU uses reserved fields\n");
				return -EINVAL;
			}
			/* check src1 operand */
			err = check_reg_arg(env, insn->src_reg, SRC_OP);
			if (err)
				return err;
		} else {
			if (insn->src_reg != BPF_REG_0 || insn->off != 0) {
				verbose(env, "BPF_ALU uses reserved fields\n");
				return -EINVAL;
			}
		}

		/* check src2 operand */
		err = check_reg_arg(env, insn->dst_reg, SRC_OP);
		if (err)
			return err;

		if ((opcode == BPF_MOD || opcode == BPF_DIV) &&
		    BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_K && insn->imm == 0) {
			verbose(env, "div by zero\n");
			return -EINVAL;
		}

		if ((opcode == BPF_LSH || opcode == BPF_RSH ||
		     opcode == BPF_ARSH) && BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_K) {
			int size = BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64 ? 64 : 32;

			if (insn->imm < 0 || insn->imm >= size) {
				verbose(env, "invalid shift %d\n", insn->imm);
				return -EINVAL;
			}
		}

		/* check dest operand */
		err = check_reg_arg(env, insn->dst_reg, DST_OP_NO_MARK);
		if (err)
			return err;

		return adjust_reg_min_max_vals(env, insn);
	}

	return 0;
}

Vulnerability Type: DoS Overflow Mem. Corr. 
CWE ID: CWE-119
Summary: The check_alu_op function in kernel/bpf/verifier.c in the Linux kernel through 4.14.8 allows local users to cause a denial of service (memory corruption) or possibly have unspecified other impact by leveraging incorrect sign extension.
Commit Message: bpf: fix incorrect sign extension in check_alu_op()

Distinguish between
BPF_ALU64|BPF_MOV|BPF_K (load 32-bit immediate, sign-extended to 64-bit)
and BPF_ALU|BPF_MOV|BPF_K (load 32-bit immediate, zero-padded to 64-bit);
only perform sign extension in the first case.

Starting with v4.14, this is exploitable by unprivileged users as long as
the unprivileged_bpf_disabled sysctl isn't set.

Debian assigned CVE-2017-16995 for this issue.

v3:
 - add CVE number (Ben Hutchings)

Fixes: 484611357c19 ("bpf: allow access into map value arrays")
Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Acked-by: Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>