linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bpf: fix a false positive kmemcheck warning

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

Message-ID: <5409F032.50101@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 05 Sep 2014 19:17:38 +0200
From:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
To:	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
CC:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...hat.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: fix a false positive kmemcheck warning

On 09/05/2014 07:13 PM, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2014, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On 09/05/2014 07:00 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>>> On Fr, 2014-09-05 at 18:20 +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>>> Hi Mikulas,
>>>>
>>>> On 09/05/2014 06:01 PM, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>>>>> This patch fixes false positive kmemcheck warning in bpf.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we try to write the variable len, the compiler generates a code
>>>>> that
>>>>> reads the 32-bit word, modifies the bits belonging to "len" and writes
>>>>> the
>>>>> 32-bit word back. The reading of the word results in kmemcheck warning
>>>>> due
>>>>> to reading uninitialized memory. This patch fixes it by avoiding using
>>>>> bit
>>>>> fields when kmemcheck is enabled.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
>>>>
>>>> You need to submit this patch to netdev (Cc'ed).
>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     include/linux/filter.h |    5 +++++
>>>>>     1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/filter.h
>>>>> ===================================================================
>>>>> --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/filter.h	2014-09-04 23:04:26.000000000
>>>>> +0200
>>>>> +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/filter.h	2014-09-04 23:43:05.000000000
>>>>> +0200
>>>>> @@ -325,8 +325,13 @@ struct sock;
>>>>>     struct seccomp_data;
>>>>>
>>>>>     struct bpf_prog {
>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_KMEMCHECK
>>>>> +	bool			jited;
>>>>> +	u32			len;
>>>>> +#else
>>>>>     	u32			jited:1,	/* Is our filter
>>>>> JIT'ed? */
>>>>>     				len:31;		/* Number of filter
>>>>> blocks */
>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>     	struct sock_fprog_kern	*orig_prog;	/* Original BPF
>>>>> program */
>>>>>     	unsigned int		(*bpf_func)(const struct sk_buff *skb,
>>>>>     					    const struct bpf_insn
>>>>> *filter);
>>>>
>>>> I don't really like this if-def. If you really want to fix it, can't
>>>> you just use :
>>>>
>>>>      kmemcheck_bitfield_begin(bpf_anc_data)
>>>>      ...
>>>>      kmemcheck_bitfield_end(bpf_anc_data)
>>>
>>> you also need to annotate the bitfield after allocation:
>>> struct bpf_prog *prog = kalloc(...);
>>> kmemcheck_annotate_bitfield(prog, bpf_anc_data);
>>
>> Yes, sure, sorry if that was not clear from my side, that was what I
>> intended to say with kmemcheck /infrastructure/. :)
>
> So, change it to use these markings. I'm not an expert in this area, so I
> don't know all the places where this structure could be allocated. If you
> know them all, mark it in this way.

Ok, fine by me. I have some pending items, so I'll put it
on top of them.
--
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/