Skip to content
Browse files
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.

 - add CVE number (Ben Hutchings)

Fixes: 4846113 ("bpf: allow access into map value arrays")
Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <>
Acked-by: Edward Cree <>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <>
  • Loading branch information
thejh authored and borkmann committed Dec 21, 2017
1 parent 4374f25 commit 95a762e
Showing 1 changed file with 7 additions and 1 deletion.
@@ -2408,7 +2408,13 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn)
* remember the value we stored into this reg
regs[insn->dst_reg].type = SCALAR_VALUE;
__mark_reg_known(regs + insn->dst_reg, insn->imm);
if (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64) {
__mark_reg_known(regs + insn->dst_reg,
} else {
__mark_reg_known(regs + insn->dst_reg,

} else if (opcode > BPF_END) {

1 comment on commit 95a762e

Copy link

@zcyc zcyc commented on 95a762e Apr 1, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

  •   	__mark_reg_known(regs + insn->dst_reg, insn->imm);
  •   	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);
  •   	}

yes,its not good for Ubuntu16.04.1-16.04.4

Please sign in to comment.