linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] lzo: fix ip overrun during compress.

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: <BLUPR13MB02898F35858E65FF9FF7CD57DFAE0@BLUPR13MB0289.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Dec 2018 03:05:20 +0000
From:   Yueyi Li <liyueyi@...e.com>
To:     Dave Rodgman <dave.rodgman@....com>,
        "dsterba@...e.cz" <dsterba@...e.cz>, "w@....eu" <w@....eu>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "donb@...uritymouse.com" <donb@...uritymouse.com>,
        "markus@...rhumer.com" <markus@...rhumer.com>, nd <nd@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] lzo: fix ip overrun during compress.



On 2018/12/3 10:46, Yueyi Li wrote:
>
>
> On 2018/11/30 20:20, Dave Rodgman wrote:
>>> On 2018/11/30 0:49, Dave Rodgman wrote:
>>>> On 28/11/2018 1:52 pm, David Sterba wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The fix is adding a few branches to code that's supposed to be as 
>>>>> fast
>>>>> as possible. The branches would be evaluated all the time while
>>>>> protecting against one signle bad page address. This does not look 
>>>>> like
>>>>> a good performance tradeoff.
>>>> As an alternative, for all but the first case, instead of:
>>>>
>>>> if (unlikely(OVERFLOW_ADD_CHECK(ip, m_len) || (ip + m_len >= ip_end)))
>>>>
>>>> I'd suggest we do:
>>>>
>>>> if (unlikely((ip_end - ip) <= m_len))
>>>>
>>>> which will be about as efficient as what's currently there, but 
>>>> doesn't
>>>> have issues with overflow.
>>> Ooh, yes, pretty good solution to this, thanks.
>> Np :-)
>>
>> Actually, looking more closely at the first case, something like this
>> works quite well:
>>
>> size_t inc = 1 + ((ip - ii) >> 5);
>> if (unlikely((ip_end - ip) <= inc))
>>     break;
>> ip += inc;
>>
>> On arm64, this generates only a single branch instruction, so it's only
>> two extra arithmetic operations more than the original code (using the
>> macro results in an additional compare & branch).
>>
> How about just instead of:
>
>   if (unlikely(ip >= ip_end))
>         break;
>
> to:
>
>   if(unlikely((ip - ip_end) < ~in_len))
>         break;
>
> This just generates only one more arithmetic operation than original 
> code, not easy to grasp but more efficient.
>
>

Sorry, should be:

   if(unlikely((ip - ip_end) < ~(in_len - 20)))
         break;

> Thanks,
> Yueyi
>
>