[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f81af0ae-7458-47d3-90ae-71d5217ee7dd@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 16:37:36 +0100
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, rui.zhang@...el.com,
lukasz.luba@....com, keescook@...omium.org, gustavoars@...nel.org,
morbo@...gle.com, justinstitt@...gle.com, stanislaw.gruszka@...ux.intel.com,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
llvm@...ts.linux.dev, patches@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] thermal: core: Move initial num_trips assignment before
memcpy()
On 27/02/2024 12:09, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 11:14 AM Daniel Lezcano
> <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 27/02/2024 01:54, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
>>> When booting a CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE=y kernel compiled with a toolchain
>>> that supports __counted_by() (such as clang-18 and newer), there is a
>>> panic on boot:
>>>
>>> [ 2.913770] memcpy: detected buffer overflow: 72 byte write of buffer size 0
>>> [ 2.920834] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 1 at lib/string_helpers.c:1027 __fortify_report+0x5c/0x74
>>> ...
>>> [ 3.039208] Call trace:
>>> [ 3.041643] __fortify_report+0x5c/0x74
>>> [ 3.045469] __fortify_panic+0x18/0x20
>>> [ 3.049209] thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips+0x4c8/0x4f8
>>>
>>> This panic occurs because trips is counted by num_trips but num_trips is
>>> assigned after the call to memcpy(), so the fortify checks think the
>>> buffer size is zero because tz was allocated with kzalloc().
>>>
>>> Move the num_trips assignment before the memcpy() to resolve the panic
>>> and ensure that the fortify checks work properly.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 9b0a62758665 ("thermal: core: Store zone trips table in struct thermal_zone_device")
>>> Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c b/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
>>> index bb21f78b4bfa..1eabc8ebe27d 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
>>> @@ -1354,8 +1354,8 @@ thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips(const char *type,
>>>
>>> tz->device.class = thermal_class;
>>> tz->devdata = devdata;
>>> - memcpy(tz->trips, trips, num_trips * sizeof(*trips));
>>> tz->num_trips = num_trips;
>>> + memcpy(tz->trips, trips, num_trips * sizeof(*trips));
>>
>> IIUC, clang-18 is used and supports __counted_by().
>>
>> Is it possible sizeof(*trips) returns already the real trips array size
>> and we are multiplying it again by num_trips ?
>>
>> While with an older compiler, __counted_by() does nothing and we have to
>> multiply by num_trips ?
>>
>> IOW, the array size arithmetic is different depending if we have
>> _counted_by supported or not ?
>
> IIUC it is just the instrumentation using the current value of
> tz->num_trips (which is 0 before the initialization).
Right, but I am wondering if
memcpy(tz->trips, trips, num_trips * sizeof(*trips));
is still correct with __counted_by because:
(1) if the compiler supports it:
sizeof(*trips) == 24 bytes * num_trips
then:
memcpy(tz->trips, trips, num_trips * sizeof(*trips));
memcpy(tz->trips, trips, num_trips * 24 * num_trips);
==> memory size = 24 * num_trips^2
(2) if the compiler does not support it:
sizeof(*trips) == 24 bytes
then:
memcpy(tz->trips, trips, num_trips * sizeof(*trips));
memcpy(tz->trips, trips, num_trips * 24);
==> memory size = 24 * num_trips
Or did I misunderstand __counted_by ?
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists