linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v2] perf/ring_buffer: Prefer struct

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 19:36:18 +0200
From: Erick Archer <erick.archer@...look.com>
To: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Erick Archer <erick.archer@...look.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
	Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>,
	Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>,
	linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf/ring_buffer: Prefer struct_size over open coded
 arithmetic

Hi Kees and Christophe,
First of all, thanks for the reviews, comments and advices.

On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 09:23:15AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Sun, May 05, 2024 at 07:31:24PM +0200, Erick Archer wrote:
> > On Sun, May 05, 2024 at 05:24:55PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> > > Le 05/05/2024 à 16:15, Erick Archer a écrit :
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c b/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c
> > > > index 4013408ce012..080537eff69f 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c
> > > > @@ -822,9 +822,7 @@ struct perf_buffer *rb_alloc(int nr_pages, long watermark, int cpu, int flags)
> > > >   	unsigned long size;
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > Should size be size_t?
> > 
> > I'm sorry, but I don't have enough knowledge to answer this question.
> > The "size" variable is used as a return value by struct_size and as
> > a parameter to the order_base_2() and kzalloc_node() functions.
> 
> For Linux, size_t and unsigned long are the same (currently).
> Pedantically, yes, this should be size_t, but it's the same.

Thanks for this clarification. I will change the type for the next
version.

> 
> > [...]
> > > 	all_buf = vmalloc_user((nr_pages + 1) * PAGE_SIZE);
> > >	if (!all_buf)
> > >		goto fail_all_buf;
> > >
> > >	rb->user_page = all_buf;
> > >	rb->data_pages[0] = all_buf + PAGE_SIZE;
> > >	if (nr_pages) {					<--- here
> > >		rb->nr_pages = 1;			<---
> > >		rb->page_order = ilog2(nr_pages);
> > >	}
> > [...]
> > I think that we don't need to deal with the "nr_pages = 0" case
> > since the flex array will always have a length of one.
> > 
> > Kees, can you help us with this?
> 
> Agh, this code hurt my head for a while.
> 
> all_buf contains "nr_pages + 1" pages. all_buf gets attached to
> rb->user_page, and then rb->data_pages[0] points to the second page in
> all_buf... which means, I guess, that rb->data_pages does only have 1
> entry.
> 
> However, the nr_pages == 0 case is weird. Currently, data_pages[0] will
> still get set (which points ... off the end of all_buf). If we
> unconditionally set rb->nr_pages to 1, we're changing the behavior. If
> we _don't_ set rb->data_pages[0], we're changing the behavior, but I
> think it's an invalid pointer anyway, so this is the safer change to
> make.

Thanks for explain things well.

> I suspect the right replacement is:

> diff --git a/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c b/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c
> index 4013408ce012..7d638ce76799 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c
> @@ -916,15 +916,11 @@ void rb_free(struct perf_buffer *rb)
>  struct perf_buffer *rb_alloc(int nr_pages, long watermark, int cpu, int flags)
>  {
>  	struct perf_buffer *rb;
> -	unsigned long size;
>  	void *all_buf;
>  	int node;
>  
> -	size = sizeof(struct perf_buffer);
> -	size += sizeof(void *);
> -
>  	node = (cpu == -1) ? cpu : cpu_to_node(cpu);
> -	rb = kzalloc_node(size, GFP_KERNEL, node);
> +	rb = kzalloc_node(struct_size(rb, nr_pages, 1), GFP_KERNEL, node);
>  	if (!rb)
>  		goto fail;
>  
> @@ -935,9 +931,9 @@ struct perf_buffer *rb_alloc(int nr_pages, long watermark, int cpu, int flags)
>  		goto fail_all_buf;
>  
>  	rb->user_page = all_buf;
> -	rb->data_pages[0] = all_buf + PAGE_SIZE;
>  	if (nr_pages) {
>  		rb->nr_pages = 1;
> +		rb->data_pages[0] = all_buf + PAGE_SIZE;
>  		rb->page_order = ilog2(nr_pages);
>  	}
>  
Ok, I'll do it like this for the next version.
> 
> 
> Also, why does rb_alloc() take an "int" nr_pages? The only caller has an
> unsigned long argument for nr_pages. Nothing checks for >INT_MAX that I
> can find.

Thanks for letting me know. I will take a look.
> 
> -- 
Again, thanks,
Erick

> Kees Cook