linux-kernel - [for-next][PATCH 14/30] tracing: Have trace_stack nr

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <20181205234830.446628183@goodmis.org>
Date:   Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:48:03 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...nel.org>,
        Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Subject: [for-next][PATCH 14/30] tracing: Have trace_stack nr_entries compare not be so subtle

From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>

Dan Carpenter reviewed the trace_stack.c code and figured he found an off by
one bug.

 "From reviewing the code, it seems possible for
  stack_trace_max.nr_entries to be set to .max_entries and in that case we
  would be reading one element beyond the end of the stack_dump_trace[]
  array.  If it's not set to .max_entries then the bug doesn't affect
  runtime."

Although it looks to be the case, it is not. Because we have:

 static unsigned long stack_dump_trace[STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES+1] =
	 { [0 ... (STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES)] = ULONG_MAX };

 struct stack_trace stack_trace_max = {
	.max_entries		= STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES - 1,
	.entries		= &stack_dump_trace[0],
 };

And:

	stack_trace_max.nr_entries = x;
	for (; x < i; x++)
		stack_dump_trace[x] = ULONG_MAX;

Even if nr_entries equals max_entries, indexing with it into the
stack_dump_trace[] array will not overflow the array. But if it is the case,
the second part of the conditional that tests stack_dump_trace[nr_entries]
to ULONG_MAX will always be true.

By applying Dan's patch, it removes the subtle aspect of it and makes the if
conditional slightly more efficient.

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180620110758.crunhd5bfep7zuiz@kili.mountain

Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@...dmis.org>
---
 kernel/trace/trace_stack.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c b/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c
index 2b0d1ee3241c..e2a153fc1afc 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c
@@ -286,7 +286,7 @@ __next(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *pos)
 {
 	long n = *pos - 1;

-	if (n > stack_trace_max.nr_entries || stack_dump_trace[n] == ULONG_MAX)
+	if (n >= stack_trace_max.nr_entries || stack_dump_trace[n] == ULONG_MAX)
 		return NULL;

 	m->private = (void *)n;
-- 
2.19.1