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;
			if (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64) {
				__mark_reg_known(regs + insn->dst_reg,
						 insn->imm);
			} else {
				__mark_reg_known(regs + insn->dst_reg,
						 (u32)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: 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 register truncation mishandling.
Commit Message: bpf: fix incorrect tracking of register size truncation

Properly handle register truncation to a smaller size.

The old code first mirrors the clearing of the high 32 bits in the bitwise
tristate representation, which is correct. But then, it computes the new
arithmetic bounds as the intersection between the old arithmetic bounds and
the bounds resulting from the bitwise tristate representation. Therefore,
when coerce_reg_to_32() is called on a number with bounds
[0xffff'fff8, 0x1'0000'0007], the verifier computes
[0xffff'fff8, 0xffff'ffff] as bounds of the truncated number.
This is incorrect: The truncated number could also be in the range [0, 7],
and no meaningful arithmetic bounds can be computed in that case apart from
the obvious [0, 0xffff'ffff].

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

Debian assigned CVE-2017-16996 for this issue.

v2:
 - flip the mask during arithmetic bounds calculation (Ben Hutchings)
v3:
 - add CVE number (Ben Hutchings)

Fixes: b03c9f9fdc37 ("bpf/verifier: track signed and unsigned min/max values")
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>