| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20130506203101.110885950@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 13:44:50 -0700
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Stephan Schreiber <info@...driver.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Subject: [ 054/115] Wrong asm register contraints in the futex implementation
3.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Stephan Schreiber <info@...driver.org>
commit 136f39ddc53db3bcee2befbe323a56d4fbf06da8 upstream.
The Linux Kernel contains some inline assembly source code which has
wrong asm register constraints in arch/ia64/include/asm/futex.h.
I observed this on Kernel 3.2.23 but it is also true on the most
recent Kernel 3.9-rc1.
File arch/ia64/include/asm/futex.h:
static inline int
futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic(u32 *uval, u32 __user *uaddr,
u32 oldval, u32 newval)
{
if (!access_ok(VERIFY_WRITE, uaddr, sizeof(u32)))
return -EFAULT;
{
register unsigned long r8 __asm ("r8");
unsigned long prev;
__asm__ __volatile__(
" mf;; \n"
" mov %0=r0 \n"
" mov ar.ccv=%4;; \n"
"[1:] cmpxchg4.acq %1=[%2],%3,ar.ccv \n"
" .xdata4 \"__ex_table\", 1b-., 2f-. \n"
"[2:]"
: "=r" (r8), "=r" (prev)
: "r" (uaddr), "r" (newval),
"rO" ((long) (unsigned) oldval)
: "memory");
*uval = prev;
return r8;
}
}
The list of output registers is
: "=r" (r8), "=r" (prev)
The constraint "=r" means that the GCC has to maintain that these vars
are in registers and contain valid info when the program flow leaves
the assembly block (output registers).
But "=r" also means that GCC can put them in registers that are used
as input registers. Input registers are uaddr, newval, oldval on the
example.
The second assembly instruction
" mov %0=r0 \n"
is the first one which writes to a register; it sets %0 to 0. %0 means
the first register operand; it is r8 here. (The r0 is read-only and
always 0 on the Itanium; it can be used if an immediate zero value is
needed.)
This instruction might overwrite one of the other registers which are
still needed.
Whether it really happens depends on how GCC decides what registers it
uses and how it optimizes the code.
The objdump utility can give us disassembly.
The futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic() function is inline, so we have to
look for a module that uses the funtion. This is the
cmpxchg_futex_value_locked() function in
kernel/futex.c:
static int cmpxchg_futex_value_locked(u32 *curval, u32 __user *uaddr,
u32 uval, u32 newval)
{
int ret;
pagefault_disable();
ret = futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic(curval, uaddr, uval, newval);
pagefault_enable();
return ret;
}
Now the disassembly. At first from the Kernel package 3.2.23 which has
been compiled with GCC 4.4, remeber this Kernel seemed to work:
objdump -d linux-3.2.23/debian/build/build_ia64_none_mckinley/kernel/futex.o
0000000000000230 <cmpxchg_futex_value_locked>:
230: 0b 18 80 1b 18 21 [MMI] adds r3=3168,r13;;
236: 80 40 0d 00 42 00 adds r8=40,r3
23c: 00 00 04 00 nop.i 0x0;;
240: 0b 50 00 10 10 10 [MMI] ld4 r10=[r8];;
246: 90 08 28 00 42 00 adds r9=1,r10
24c: 00 00 04 00 nop.i 0x0;;
250: 09 00 00 00 01 00 [MMI] nop.m 0x0
256: 00 48 20 20 23 00 st4 [r8]=r9
25c: 00 00 04 00 nop.i 0x0;;
260: 08 10 80 06 00 21 [MMI] adds r2=32,r3
266: 00 00 00 02 00 00 nop.m 0x0
26c: 02 08 f1 52 extr.u r16=r33,0,61
270: 05 40 88 00 08 e0 [MLX] addp4 r8=r34,r0
276: ff ff 0f 00 00 e0 movl r15=0xfffffffbfff;;
27c: f1 f7 ff 65
280: 09 70 00 04 18 10 [MMI] ld8 r14=[r2]
286: 00 00 00 02 00 c0 nop.m 0x0
28c: f0 80 1c d0 cmp.ltu p6,p7=r15,r16;;
290: 08 40 fc 1d 09 3b [MMI] cmp.eq p8,p9=-1,r14
296: 00 00 00 02 00 40 nop.m 0x0
29c: e1 08 2d d0 cmp.ltu p10,p11=r14,r33
2a0: 56 01 10 00 40 10 [BBB] (p10) br.cond.spnt.few 2e0
<cmpxchg_futex_value_locked+0xb0>
2a6: 02 08 00 80 21 03 (p08) br.cond.dpnt.few 2b0
<cmpxchg_futex_value_locked+0x80>
2ac: 40 00 00 41 (p06) br.cond.spnt.few 2e0
<cmpxchg_futex_value_locked+0xb0>
2b0: 0a 00 00 00 22 00 [MMI] mf;;
2b6: 80 00 00 00 42 00 mov r8=r0
2bc: 00 00 04 00 nop.i 0x0
2c0: 0b 00 20 40 2a 04 [MMI] mov.m ar.ccv=r8;;
2c6: 10 1a 85 22 20 00 cmpxchg4.acq r33=[r33],r35,ar.ccv
2cc: 00 00 04 00 nop.i 0x0;;
2d0: 10 00 84 40 90 11 [MIB] st4 [r32]=r33
2d6: 00 00 00 02 00 00 nop.i 0x0
2dc: 20 00 00 40 br.few 2f0
<cmpxchg_futex_value_locked+0xc0>
2e0: 09 40 c8 f9 ff 27 [MMI] mov r8=-14
2e6: 00 00 00 02 00 00 nop.m 0x0
2ec: 00 00 04 00 nop.i 0x0;;
2f0: 0b 58 20 1a 19 21 [MMI] adds r11=3208,r13;;
2f6: 20 01 2c 20 20 00 ld4 r18=[r11]
2fc: 00 00 04 00 nop.i 0x0;;
300: 0b 88 fc 25 3f 23 [MMI] adds r17=-1,r18;;
306: 00 88 2c 20 23 00 st4 [r11]=r17
30c: 00 00 04 00 nop.i 0x0;;
310: 11 00 00 00 01 00 [MIB] nop.m 0x0
316: 00 00 00 02 00 80 nop.i 0x0
31c: 08 00 84 00 br.ret.sptk.many b0;;
The lines
2b0: 0a 00 00 00 22 00 [MMI] mf;;
2b6: 80 00 00 00 42 00 mov r8=r0
2bc: 00 00 04 00 nop.i 0x0
2c0: 0b 00 20 40 2a 04 [MMI] mov.m ar.ccv=r8;;
2c6: 10 1a 85 22 20 00 cmpxchg4.acq r33=[r33],r35,ar.ccv
2cc: 00 00 04 00 nop.i 0x0;;
are the instructions of the assembly block.
The line
2b6: 80 00 00 00 42 00 mov r8=r0
sets the r8 register to 0 and after that
2c0: 0b 00 20 40 2a 04 [MMI] mov.m ar.ccv=r8;;
prepares the 'oldvalue' for the cmpxchg but it takes it from r8. This
is wrong.
What happened here is what I explained above: An input register is
overwritten which is still needed.
The register operand constraints in futex.h are wrong.
(The problem doesn't occur when the Kernel is compiled with GCC 4.6.)
The attached patch fixes the register operand constraints in futex.h.
The code after patching of it:
static inline int
futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic(u32 *uval, u32 __user *uaddr,
u32 oldval, u32 newval)
{
if (!access_ok(VERIFY_WRITE, uaddr, sizeof(u32)))
return -EFAULT;
{
register unsigned long r8 __asm ("r8") = 0;
unsigned long prev;
__asm__ __volatile__(
" mf;; \n"
" mov ar.ccv=%4;; \n"
"[1:] cmpxchg4.acq %1=[%2],%3,ar.ccv \n"
" .xdata4 \"__ex_table\", 1b-., 2f-. \n"
"[2:]"
: "+r" (r8), "=&r" (prev)
: "r" (uaddr), "r" (newval),
"rO" ((long) (unsigned) oldval)
: "memory");
*uval = prev;
return r8;
}
}
I also initialized the 'r8' var with the C programming language.
The _asm qualifier on the definition of the 'r8' var forces GCC to use
the r8 processor register for it.
I don't believe that we should use inline assembly for zeroing out a
local variable.
The constraint is
"+r" (r8)
what means that it is both an input register and an output register.
Note that the page fault handler will modify the r8 register which
will be the return value of the function.
The real fix is
"=&r" (prev)
The & means that GCC must not use any of the input registers to place
this output register in.
Patched the Kernel 3.2.23 and compiled it with GCC4.4:
0000000000000230 <cmpxchg_futex_value_locked>:
230: 0b 18 80 1b 18 21 [MMI] adds r3=3168,r13;;
236: 80 40 0d 00 42 00 adds r8=40,r3
23c: 00 00 04 00 nop.i 0x0;;
240: 0b 50 00 10 10 10 [MMI] ld4 r10=[r8];;
246: 90 08 28 00 42 00 adds r9=1,r10
24c: 00 00 04 00 nop.i 0x0;;
250: 09 00 00 00 01 00 [MMI] nop.m 0x0
256: 00 48 20 20 23 00 st4 [r8]=r9
25c: 00 00 04 00 nop.i 0x0;;
260: 08 10 80 06 00 21 [MMI] adds r2=32,r3
266: 20 12 01 10 40 00 addp4 r34=r34,r0
26c: 02 08 f1 52 extr.u r16=r33,0,61
270: 05 40 00 00 00 e1 [MLX] mov r8=r0
276: ff ff 0f 00 00 e0 movl r15=0xfffffffbfff;;
27c: f1 f7 ff 65
280: 09 70 00 04 18 10 [MMI] ld8 r14=[r2]
286: 00 00 00 02 00 c0 nop.m 0x0
28c: f0 80 1c d0 cmp.ltu p6,p7=r15,r16;;
290: 08 40 fc 1d 09 3b [MMI] cmp.eq p8,p9=-1,r14
296: 00 00 00 02 00 40 nop.m 0x0
29c: e1 08 2d d0 cmp.ltu p10,p11=r14,r33
2a0: 56 01 10 00 40 10 [BBB] (p10) br.cond.spnt.few 2e0
<cmpxchg_futex_value_locked+0xb0>
2a6: 02 08 00 80 21 03 (p08) br.cond.dpnt.few 2b0
<cmpxchg_futex_value_locked+0x80>
2ac: 40 00 00 41 (p06) br.cond.spnt.few 2e0
<cmpxchg_futex_value_locked+0xb0>
2b0: 0b 00 00 00 22 00 [MMI] mf;;
2b6: 00 10 81 54 08 00 mov.m ar.ccv=r34
2bc: 00 00 04 00 nop.i 0x0;;
2c0: 09 58 8c 42 11 10 [MMI] cmpxchg4.acq r11=[r33],r35,ar.ccv
2c6: 00 00 00 02 00 00 nop.m 0x0
2cc: 00 00 04 00 nop.i 0x0;;
2d0: 10 00 2c 40 90 11 [MIB] st4 [r32]=r11
2d6: 00 00 00 02 00 00 nop.i 0x0
2dc: 20 00 00 40 br.few 2f0
<cmpxchg_futex_value_locked+0xc0>
2e0: 09 40 c8 f9 ff 27 [MMI] mov r8=-14
2e6: 00 00 00 02 00 00 nop.m 0x0
2ec: 00 00 04 00 nop.i 0x0;;
2f0: 0b 88 20 1a 19 21 [MMI] adds r17=3208,r13;;
2f6: 30 01 44 20 20 00 ld4 r19=[r17]
2fc: 00 00 04 00 nop.i 0x0;;
300: 0b 90 fc 27 3f 23 [MMI] adds r18=-1,r19;;
306: 00 90 44 20 23 00 st4 [r17]=r18
30c: 00 00 04 00 nop.i 0x0;;
310: 11 00 00 00 01 00 [MIB] nop.m 0x0
316: 00 00 00 02 00 80 nop.i 0x0
31c: 08 00 84 00 br.ret.sptk.many b0;;
Much better.
There is a
270: 05 40 00 00 00 e1 [MLX] mov r8=r0
which was generated by C code r8 = 0. Below
2b6: 00 10 81 54 08 00 mov.m ar.ccv=r34
what means that oldval is no longer overwritten.
This is Debian bug#702641
(http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=702641).
The patch is applicable on Kernel 3.9-rc1, 3.2.23 and many other versions.
Signed-off-by: Stephan Schreiber <info@...driver.org>
Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
arch/ia64/include/asm/futex.h | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--- a/arch/ia64/include/asm/futex.h
+++ b/arch/ia64/include/asm/futex.h
@@ -106,16 +106,15 @@ futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic(u32 *uval,
return -EFAULT;
{
- register unsigned long r8 __asm ("r8");
+ register unsigned long r8 __asm ("r8") = 0;
unsigned long prev;
__asm__ __volatile__(
" mf;; \n"
- " mov %0=r0 \n"
" mov ar.ccv=%4;; \n"
"[1:] cmpxchg4.acq %1=[%2],%3,ar.ccv \n"
" .xdata4 \"__ex_table\", 1b-., 2f-. \n"
"[2:]"
- : "=r" (r8), "=r" (prev)
+ : "+r" (r8), "=&r" (prev)
: "r" (uaddr), "r" (newval),
"rO" ((long) (unsigned) oldval)
: "memory");
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists