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]

Date:   Wed, 12 Dec 2018 13:35:15 +0100
From:   "Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer" <markus@...rhumer.com>
To:     Yueyi Li <liyueyi@...e.com>, "dsterba@...e.cz" <dsterba@...e.cz>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "w@....eu" <w@....eu>,
        "donb@...uritymouse.com" <donb@...uritymouse.com>,
        Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] lzo: fix ip overrun during compress.

I still claim that (0xfffffffffffff000, 4096) is not a valid C "pointer
to an object" according to the C standard - please see my reply below.

And I thought ASLR was introduced to improve security and not to create
new security problems - someone from the ASLR team has to comment on this.

Cheers,
Markus


On 2018-12-12 06:21, Yueyi Li wrote:
> Hi Markus,
> 
> OK, thanks. I`ll change it in v3.
> 
> Thanks,
> Yueyi
> 
> On 2018/12/6 23:03, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:
>> Hi Yueyi,
>>
>> yes, my LZO patch works for all cases.
>>
>> The reason behind the issue in the first place is that if KASLR
>> includes the very last page 0xfffffffffffff000 then we do not have a
>> valid C "pointer to an object" anymore because of address wraparound.
>>
>> Unrelated to my patch I'd argue that KASLR should *NOT* include the
>> very last page - indeed that might cause similar wraparound problems
>> in lots of code.
>>
>> Eg, look at this simple clear_memory() implementation:
>>
>> void clear_memory(char *p, size_t len) {
>>          char *end = p + len;
>>          while (p < end)
>>                  *p++= 0;
>> }
>>
>> Valid code like this will fail horribly when (p, len) is the very
>> last virtual page (because end will be the NULL pointer in this case).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Markus
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2018-12-05 04:07, Yueyi Li wrote:
>>> Hi Markus,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your review.
>>>
>>> On 2018/12/4 18:20, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that address space wraparound is legal in C, but I
>>>> understand that we are in kernel land and if you really want to
>>>> compress the last virtual page 0xfffffffffffff000 the following
>>>> small patch should fix that dubious case.
>>> I guess the VA 0xfffffffffffff000 is available because KASLR be
>>> enabled. For this case we can see:
>>>
>>> crash> kmem 0xfffffffffffff000
>>>         PAGE               PHYSICAL      MAPPING       INDEX CNT FLAGS
>>> ffffffbfffffffc0        1fffff000 ffffffff1655ecb9  7181fd5  2
>>> 8000000000064209 locked,uptodate,owner_priv_1,writeback,reclaim,swapbacked
>>>
>>>> This also avoids slowing down the the hot path of the compression
>>>> core function.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Markus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/lib/lzo/lzo1x_compress.c b/lib/lzo/lzo1x_compress.c
>>>> index 236eb21167b5..959dec45f6fe 100644
>>>> --- a/lib/lzo/lzo1x_compress.c
>>>> +++ b/lib/lzo/lzo1x_compress.c
>>>> @@ -224,8 +224,8 @@ int lzo1x_1_compress(const unsigned char *in, size_t in_len,
>>>>    
>>>>           while (l > 20) {
>>>>                   size_t ll = l <= (M4_MAX_OFFSET + 1) ? l : (M4_MAX_OFFSET + 1);
>>>> -               uintptr_t ll_end = (uintptr_t) ip + ll;
>>>> -               if ((ll_end + ((t + ll) >> 5)) <= ll_end)
>>>> +               // check for address space wraparound
>>>> +               if (((uintptr_t) ip + ll + ((t + ll) >> 5)) <= (uintptr_t) ip)
>>>>                           break;
>>>>                   BUILD_BUG_ON(D_SIZE * sizeof(lzo_dict_t) > LZO1X_1_MEM_COMPRESS);
>>>>                   memset(wrkmem, 0, D_SIZE * sizeof(lzo_dict_t));
>>> I parsed panic ramdump and loaded CPU register values,  can see:
>>>
>>> -000|lzo1x_1_do_compress(
>>>       |    in = 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFF000,
>>>       |  ?,
>>>       |    out = 0xFFFFFFFF2E2EE000,
>>>       |    out_len = 0xFFFFFF801CAA3510,
>>>       |  ?,
>>>       |    wrkmem = 0xFFFFFFFF4EBC0000)
>>>       |  dict = 0xFFFFFFFF4EBC0000
>>>       |  op = 0x1
>>>       |  ip = 0x9
>>>       |  ii = 0x9
>>>       |  in_end = 0x0
>>>       |  ip_end = 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFEC
>>>       |  m_len = 0
>>>       |  m_off = 1922
>>> -001|lzo1x_1_compress(
>>>       |    in = 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFF000,
>>>       |    in_len = 0,
>>>       |    out = 0xFFFFFFFF2E2EE000,
>>>       |    out_len = 0x00000001616FB7D0,
>>>       |    wrkmem = 0xFFFFFFFF4EBC0000)
>>>       |  ip = 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFF000
>>>       |  op = 0xFFFFFFFF2E2EE000
>>>       |  l = 4096
>>>       |  t = 0
>>>       |  ll = 4096
>>>
>>> ll = l = in_len = 4096 in lzo1x_1_compress,  so your patch is working
>>> for this panic case, but, I`m
>>> not sure, is it possible that in = 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFF000 and  in_len < 4096?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Yueyi
>>>
> 
> 

-- 
Markus Oberhumer, <markus@...rhumer.com>, http://www.oberhumer.com/