--- /dev/null
+From f232326f6966cf2a1d1db7bc917a4ce5f9f55f76 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Piotr Krysiuk <piotras@gmail.com>
+Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 09:47:02 +0100
+Subject: bpf: Prohibit alu ops for pointer types not defining ptr_limit
+
+From: Piotr Krysiuk <piotras@gmail.com>
+
+commit f232326f6966cf2a1d1db7bc917a4ce5f9f55f76 upstream.
+
+The purpose of this patch is to streamline error propagation and in particular
+to propagate retrieve_ptr_limit() errors for pointer types that are not defining
+a ptr_limit such that register-based alu ops against these types can be rejected.
+
+The main rationale is that a gap has been identified by Piotr in the existing
+protection against speculatively out-of-bounds loads, for example, in case of
+ctx pointers, unprivileged programs can still perform pointer arithmetic. This
+can be abused to execute speculatively out-of-bounds loads without restrictions
+and thus extract contents of kernel memory.
+
+Fix this by rejecting unprivileged programs that attempt any pointer arithmetic
+on unprotected pointer types. The two affected ones are pointer to ctx as well
+as pointer to map. Field access to a modified ctx' pointer is rejected at a
+later point in time in the verifier, and 7c6967326267 ("bpf: Permit map_ptr
+arithmetic with opcode add and offset 0") only relevant for root-only use cases.
+Risk of unprivileged program breakage is considered very low.
+
+Fixes: 7c6967326267 ("bpf: Permit map_ptr arithmetic with opcode add and offset 0")
+Fixes: b2157399cc98 ("bpf: prevent out-of-bounds speculation")
+Signed-off-by: Piotr Krysiuk <piotras@gmail.com>
+Co-developed-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
+Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
+Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
+Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
+
+---
+ kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 16 ++++++++++------
+ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
+
+--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
++++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+@@ -2104,6 +2104,7 @@ static int sanitize_ptr_alu(struct bpf_v
+ u32 alu_state, alu_limit;
+ struct bpf_reg_state tmp;
+ bool ret;
++ int err;
+
+ if (can_skip_alu_sanitation(env, insn))
+ return 0;
+@@ -2119,10 +2120,13 @@ static int sanitize_ptr_alu(struct bpf_v
+ alu_state |= ptr_is_dst_reg ?
+ BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_SRC : BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_DST;
+
+- if (retrieve_ptr_limit(ptr_reg, &alu_limit, opcode, off_is_neg))
+- return 0;
+- if (update_alu_sanitation_state(aux, alu_state, alu_limit))
+- return -EACCES;
++ err = retrieve_ptr_limit(ptr_reg, &alu_limit, opcode, off_is_neg);
++ if (err < 0)
++ return err;
++
++ err = update_alu_sanitation_state(aux, alu_state, alu_limit);
++ if (err < 0)
++ return err;
+ do_sim:
+ /* Simulate and find potential out-of-bounds access under
+ * speculative execution from truncation as a result of
+@@ -2215,7 +2219,7 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struc
+ case BPF_ADD:
+ ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, dst_reg, smin_val < 0);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+- verbose("R%d tried to add from different maps or paths\n", dst);
++ verbose("R%d tried to add from different maps, paths, or prohibited types\n", dst);
+ return ret;
+ }
+ /* We can take a fixed offset as long as it doesn't overflow
+@@ -2270,7 +2274,7 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struc
+ case BPF_SUB:
+ ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, dst_reg, smin_val < 0);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+- verbose("R%d tried to sub from different maps or paths\n", dst);
++ verbose("R%d tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types\n", dst);
+ return ret;
+ }
+ if (dst_reg == off_reg) {