linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.2.y-ckt 065/206] ext4: silence UBSAN in ext4_mb

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: <1465507015-23052-66-git-send-email-kamal@canonical.com>
Date:	Thu,  9 Jun 2016 14:14:34 -0700
From:	Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com
Cc:	Nicolai Stange <nicstange@...il.com>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.2.y-ckt 065/206] ext4: silence UBSAN in ext4_mb_init()

4.2.8-ckt12 -stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

---8<------------------------------------------------------------

From: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@...il.com>

commit 935244cd54b86ca46e69bc6604d2adfb1aec2d42 upstream.

Currently, in ext4_mb_init(), there's a loop like the following:

  do {
    ...
    offset += 1 << (sb->s_blocksize_bits - i);
    i++;
  } while (i <= sb->s_blocksize_bits + 1);

Note that the updated offset is used in the loop's next iteration only.

However, at the last iteration, that is at i == sb->s_blocksize_bits + 1,
the shift count becomes equal to (unsigned)-1 > 31 (c.f. C99 6.5.7(3))
and UBSAN reports

  UBSAN: Undefined behaviour in fs/ext4/mballoc.c:2621:15
  shift exponent 4294967295 is too large for 32-bit type 'int'
  [...]
  Call Trace:
   [<ffffffff818c4d25>] dump_stack+0xbc/0x117
   [<ffffffff818c4c69>] ? _atomic_dec_and_lock+0x169/0x169
   [<ffffffff819411ab>] ubsan_epilogue+0xd/0x4e
   [<ffffffff81941cac>] __ubsan_handle_shift_out_of_bounds+0x1fb/0x254
   [<ffffffff81941ab1>] ? __ubsan_handle_load_invalid_value+0x158/0x158
   [<ffffffff814b6dc1>] ? kmem_cache_alloc+0x101/0x390
   [<ffffffff816fc13b>] ? ext4_mb_init+0x13b/0xfd0
   [<ffffffff814293c7>] ? create_cache+0x57/0x1f0
   [<ffffffff8142948a>] ? create_cache+0x11a/0x1f0
   [<ffffffff821c2168>] ? mutex_lock+0x38/0x60
   [<ffffffff821c23ab>] ? mutex_unlock+0x1b/0x50
   [<ffffffff814c26ab>] ? put_online_mems+0x5b/0xc0
   [<ffffffff81429677>] ? kmem_cache_create+0x117/0x2c0
   [<ffffffff816fcc49>] ext4_mb_init+0xc49/0xfd0
   [...]

Observe that the mentioned shift exponent, 4294967295, equals (unsigned)-1.

Unless compilers start to do some fancy transformations (which at least
GCC 6.0.0 doesn't currently do), the issue is of cosmetic nature only: the
such calculated value of offset is never used again.

Silence UBSAN by introducing another variable, offset_incr, holding the
next increment to apply to offset and adjust that one by right shifting it
by one position per loop iteration.

Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114701
Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112161

Signed-off-by: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Signed-off-by: Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>
---
 fs/ext4/mballoc.c | 6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
index d9f9361..5162921 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
@@ -2571,7 +2571,7 @@ int ext4_mb_init(struct super_block *sb)
 {
 	struct ext4_sb_info *sbi = EXT4_SB(sb);
 	unsigned i, j;
-	unsigned offset;
+	unsigned offset, offset_incr;
 	unsigned max;
 	int ret;
 
@@ -2600,11 +2600,13 @@ int ext4_mb_init(struct super_block *sb)
 
 	i = 1;
 	offset = 0;
+	offset_incr = 1 << (sb->s_blocksize_bits - 1);
 	max = sb->s_blocksize << 2;
 	do {
 		sbi->s_mb_offsets[i] = offset;
 		sbi->s_mb_maxs[i] = max;
-		offset += 1 << (sb->s_blocksize_bits - i);
+		offset += offset_incr;
+		offset_incr = offset_incr >> 1;
 		max = max >> 1;
 		i++;
 	} while (i <= sb->s_blocksize_bits + 1);
-- 
2.7.4