bpf: Fix signed_{sub,add32}_overflows type handling

Fix incorrect signed_{sub,add32}_overflows() input types (and a related buggy
comment). It looks like this might have slipped in via copy/paste issue, also
given prior to 3f50f132d840 ("bpf: Verifier, do explicit ALU32 bounds tracking")
the signature of signed_sub_overflows() had s64 a and s64 b as its input args
whereas now they are truncated to s32. Thus restore proper types. Also, the case
of signed_add32_overflows() is not consistent to signed_sub32_overflows(). Both
have s32 as inputs, therefore align the former.

Fixes: 3f50f132d840 ("bpf: Verifier, do explicit ALU32 bounds tracking")
Reported-by: De4dCr0w <sa516203@mail.ustc.edu.cn>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Reviewed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 36af69f..e7368c5 100644 (file)
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -5313,7 +5313,7 @@ static bool signed_add_overflows(s64 a, s64 b)
        return res < a;
 }
 
-static bool signed_add32_overflows(s64 a, s64 b)
+static bool signed_add32_overflows(s32 a, s32 b)
 {
        /* Do the add in u32, where overflow is well-defined */
        s32 res = (s32)((u32)a + (u32)b);
@@ -5323,7 +5323,7 @@ static bool signed_add32_overflows(s64 a, s64 b)
        return res < a;
 }
 
-static bool signed_sub_overflows(s32 a, s32 b)
+static bool signed_sub_overflows(s64 a, s64 b)
 {
        /* Do the sub in u64, where overflow is well-defined */
        s64 res = (s64)((u64)a - (u64)b);
@@ -5335,7 +5335,7 @@ static bool signed_sub_overflows(s32 a, s32 b)
 
 static bool signed_sub32_overflows(s32 a, s32 b)
 {
-       /* Do the sub in u64, where overflow is well-defined */
+       /* Do the sub in u32, where overflow is well-defined */
        s32 res = (s32)((u32)a - (u32)b);
 
        if (b < 0)