linux-kernel - RE: No check of the size passed to unmap

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: <VI1PR04MB3071FBA364C78317F3C3A25D8C200@VI1PR04MB3071.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Nov 2017 03:23:33 +0000
From:   Eric Yang <yu.yang_3@....com>
To:     Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        "iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        "David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "Geert Uytterhoeven" <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: RE: No check of the size passed to unmap_single in  swiotlb



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk [mailto:konrad.wilk@...cle.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 12:27 AM
> To: Eric Yang <yu.yang_3@....com>; iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>; Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>;
> Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>; David Miller
> <davem@...emloft.net>; Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>; Geert
> Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>; Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>;
> Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>; Daniel Borkmann
> <daniel@...earbox.net>
> Subject: Re: No check of the size passed to unmap_single in swiotlb
> 
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 08:17:14AM +0000, Eric Yang wrote:
> > Hi all,
> 
> Hi!

Hi  Konrad,
> >
> > During debug a  device only support 32bits DMA(Qualcomm Atheros AP) in our
> LS1043A 64bits ARM  SOC, we found that the invoke of dma_unmap_single -->
> swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single  will unmap the passed "size" anyway even when the
> "size" is incorrect.
> >
> > If the size is larger than it should, the extra entries in io_tlb_orig_addr array
> will be refilled by INVALID_PHYS_ADDR, and it will cause the bounce buffer copy
> not happen when the one who really used the mis-freed entries doing  DMA data
> transfers, and this will cause further unknow behaviors.
> >
> > Here we just fix it temporarily by adding a judge of the "size" in the
> swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single, if it is larger than it deserves, just unmap the right
> size only. Like the code:
> 
> Did the DMA debug API (CONFIG_DMA_API_DEBUG) help in figuring this issue as
> well?
> 

I have just enabled this config and move off the kernel fix and test, there seems the debug API 
has no output for this size incorrect issue. For I only enable the config and no other operations 
and my kernel is 4.9, do I missed something?

I confirm that the debug API is working, for there are other drivers triggered its warning output 
like:
 
caam_jr 1710000.jr: DMA-API: device driver tries to free DMA memory it has not allocated 
[device address=0x6800458400000000]

> >
> > [yangyu@...an dash-lts]$ git diff ./lib/swiotlb.c diff --git
> > a/lib/swiotlb.c b/lib/swiotlb.c index ad1d2962d129..58c97ede9d78
> > 100644
> > --- a/lib/swiotlb.c
> > +++ b/lib/swiotlb.c
> > @@ -591,7 +591,10 @@ void swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single(struct device *hwdev,
> phys_addr_t tlb_addr,
> >                  */
> >                 for (i = index + nslots - 1; i >= index; i--) {
> >                         io_tlb_list[i] = ++count;
> > -                       io_tlb_orig_addr[i] = INVALID_PHYS_ADDR;
> > +                      if(io_tlb_orig_addr[i]  != orig_addr)
> > +                          printk("======size wrong, ally down ally down!===\n");
> > +                      else
> > +                         io_tlb_orig_addr[i] = INVALID_PHYS_ADDR;
> >                 }
> >                 /*
> >                  * Step 2: merge the returned slots with the preceding
> > slots,
> >
> > Although pass a right size of DMA buffer is the responsibility of  the drivers, but
> Is it useful to add some size check code to prevent  real damage happen?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Eric