linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH RFC] iio: irsd200: fix -Warray-bounds bug in irsd200_trigger

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Mon, 21 Aug 2023 14:52:18 +0200
From:   Waqar Hameed <waqar.hameed@...s.com>
To:     Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
CC:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
        "GONG, Ruiqi" <gongruiqi@...weicloud.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>,
        Wang Weiyang <wangweiyang2@...wei.com>,
        Xiu Jianfeng <xiujianfeng@...wei.com>, <gongruiqi1@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] iio: irsd200: fix -Warray-bounds bug in
 irsd200_trigger_handler

On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 09:37 +0100 Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 05:10:04 -0600
> "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 08, 2023 at 04:37:19PM +0800, GONG, Ruiqi wrote:
>> > From: "GONG, Ruiqi" <gongruiqi1@...wei.com>
>> > 
>> > When compiling with gcc 13 with -Warray-bounds enabled:
>> > 
>> > In file included from drivers/iio/proximity/irsd200.c:15:
>> > In function ‘iio_push_to_buffers_with_timestamp’,
>> >     inlined from ‘irsd200_trigger_handler’ at drivers/iio/proximity/irsd200.c:770:2:
>> > ./include/linux/iio/buffer.h:42:46: error: array subscript ‘int64_t {aka long long int}[0]’
>> > is partly outside array bounds of ‘s16[1]’ {aka ‘short int[1]’} [-Werror=array-bounds=]
>> >    42 |                 ((int64_t *)data)[ts_offset] = timestamp;
>> >       |                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~
>> > drivers/iio/proximity/irsd200.c: In function ‘irsd200_trigger_handler’:
>> > drivers/iio/proximity/irsd200.c:763:13: note: object ‘buf’ of size 2
>> >   763 |         s16 buf = 0;
>> >       |             ^~~
>> > 
>> > The problem seems to be that irsd200_trigger_handler() is taking a s16
>> > variable as an int64_t buffer. Fix it by extending the buffer to 64 bits.  
>> 
>> Thanks for working on this!
>> 
>> > 
>> > Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/331
>> > Signed-off-by: GONG, Ruiqi <gongruiqi1@...wei.com>  
>> 
>> Acked-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@...nel.org>
>
> Good find on the bug, but the fix is wrong even if it squashes the error.

Yeah, this one slipped through!

[...]

>> > RFC: It's a preliminary patch since I'm not familiar with this hardware.
>> > Further comments/reviews are needed about whether this fix is correct,
>> > or we should use iio_push_to_buffers() instead of the *_with_timestamp()
>> > version.
>> > 
>> >  drivers/iio/proximity/irsd200.c | 4 ++--
>> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> > 
>> > diff --git a/drivers/iio/proximity/irsd200.c b/drivers/iio/proximity/irsd200.c
>> > index 5bd791b46d98..34c479881bdf 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/iio/proximity/irsd200.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/iio/proximity/irsd200.c
>> > @@ -759,10 +759,10 @@ static irqreturn_t irsd200_trigger_handler(int irq, void *pollf)
>> >  {
>> >  	struct iio_dev *indio_dev = ((struct iio_poll_func *)pollf)->indio_dev;
>> >  	struct irsd200_data *data = iio_priv(indio_dev);
>> > -	s16 buf = 0;
>> > +	int64_t buf = 0;
>
> s64 as internal kernel type.
> More importantly needs to be at least s64 buf[2]; as the offset
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/linux/iio/buffer.h#L41
> will be 1 due to this filling the timestamp in at first 8 byte aligned location
> after the data that is already in the buffer.
>
> With hindsight was a bad decision a long time ago not to force people to also
> pass the size into this function so we could detect this at runtime at least.
> Hard to repair now give very large number of drivers using this and the fact
> that it's not always easy to work out that size.  Unfortunately occasionally
> one of these slips through review :(
>
> I suppose we could, in some cases check if the buffer was at least 16 bytes which
> would get us some of the way.

Yes, that would actually be helpful.