linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH]: xarray: Fix potential out of bounds access

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: <20190114190119.GZ6310@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 14 Jan 2019 11:01:20 -0800
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: xarray: Fix potential out of bounds access

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 09:47:41PM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> Since the mark is used as an array index we should use
> preincrement to not access the XA_MARK_MAX index.

But XA_MARK_MAX is inclusive:

include/linux/xarray.h:#define XA_MARK_MAX              XA_MARK_2

so we actually want to access XA_MARK_MAX.  Now, we don't have a test
in the test-suite that fails as a result of your patch, so that needs to get
fixed.  How about this:

From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 13:57:31 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] XArray tests: Check mark 2 gets squashed

We do not currently check that the loop in xas_squash_marks() doesn't have
an off-by-one error in it.  It didn't, but a patch which introduced an
off-by-one error wasn't caught by any existing test.  Switch the roles
of XA_MARK_1 and XA_MARK_2 to catch that bug.

Reported-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
---
 lib/test_xarray.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/test_xarray.c b/lib/test_xarray.c
index 3cf17338b0a4..c596a957f764 100644
--- a/lib/test_xarray.c
+++ b/lib/test_xarray.c
@@ -199,7 +199,7 @@ static noinline void check_xa_mark_1(struct xarray *xa, unsigned long index)
 		XA_BUG_ON(xa, xa_store_index(xa, index + 1, GFP_KERNEL));
 		xa_set_mark(xa, index + 1, XA_MARK_0);
 		XA_BUG_ON(xa, xa_store_index(xa, index + 2, GFP_KERNEL));
-		xa_set_mark(xa, index + 2, XA_MARK_1);
+		xa_set_mark(xa, index + 2, XA_MARK_2);
 		XA_BUG_ON(xa, xa_store_index(xa, next, GFP_KERNEL));
 		xa_store_order(xa, index, order, xa_mk_index(index),
 				GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -209,8 +209,8 @@ static noinline void check_xa_mark_1(struct xarray *xa, unsigned long index)
 			void *entry;
 
 			XA_BUG_ON(xa, !xa_get_mark(xa, i, XA_MARK_0));
-			XA_BUG_ON(xa, !xa_get_mark(xa, i, XA_MARK_1));
-			XA_BUG_ON(xa, xa_get_mark(xa, i, XA_MARK_2));
+			XA_BUG_ON(xa, xa_get_mark(xa, i, XA_MARK_1));
+			XA_BUG_ON(xa, !xa_get_mark(xa, i, XA_MARK_2));
 
 			/* We should see two elements in the array */
 			rcu_read_lock();
-- 
2.20.1