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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 25 Feb 2019 09:22:08 +0800
From:   Tan Xiaojun <tanxiaojun@...wei.com>
To:     Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
CC:     <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, <bcrl@...ck.org>, <linux-aio@...ck.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
        <wangxiongfeng2@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] aio: add check for timeout to aviod invalid value

On 2019/2/19 4:33, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Tan Xiaojun <tanxiaojun@...wei.com> writes:
> 
>> (When I was testing with syzkaller, I found a lot of ubsan problems. Here 
>> is one of them. I am not sure if it needs to be fixed and how it will be 
>> fixed. So I sent this patch to ask your opinion.)
>>
>> Syzkaller reported a UBSAN bug below, which was mainly caused by a large
>> negative number passed to the timeout of the io_getevents system call.
>>
>> ================================================================================
>> UBSAN: Undefined behaviour in ./include/linux/ktime.h:42:14
>> signed integer overflow:
>> -8427032702788048137 * 1000000000 cannot be represented in type 'long long int'
>> CPU: 3 PID: 11668 Comm: syz-executor0 Not tainted 4.19.18-514.55.6.9.x86_64+ #1
>> Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.10.2-1ubuntu1 04/01/2014
>> Call Trace:
>>  __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:77 [inline]
>>  dump_stack+0xca/0x13e lib/dump_stack.c:113
>>  ubsan_epilogue+0xe/0x81 lib/ubsan.c:159
>>  handle_overflow+0x193/0x1e2 lib/ubsan.c:190
>>  ktime_set include/linux/ktime.h:42 [inline]
>>  timespec64_to_ktime include/linux/ktime.h:78 [inline]
>>  do_io_getevents+0x307/0x390 fs/aio.c:2043
>>  __do_sys_io_getevents fs/aio.c:2080 [inline]
>>  __se_sys_io_getevents fs/aio.c:2068 [inline]
>>  __x64_sys_io_getevents+0x163/0x250 fs/aio.c:2068
>>  do_syscall_64+0xc8/0x580 arch/x86/entry/common.c:290
>>  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
>> RIP: 0033:0x462589
>> Code: f7 d8 64 89 02 b8 ff ff ff ff c3 66 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 89 f8 48 89 f7 48 89 d6 48 89 ca 4d 89 c2 4d 89 c8 4c 8b 4c 24 08 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 c7 c1 bc ff ff ff f7 d8 64 89 01 48
>> RSP: 002b:00007fde9b04ec58 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 00000000000000d0
>> RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 000000000072bf00 RCX: 0000000000462589
>> RDX: 0000000000000006 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: 0000000000000000
>> RBP: 0000000000000005 R08: 0000000020000100 R09: 0000000000000000
>> R10: 0000000020000040 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007fde9b04f6bc
>> R13: 00000000004bd1f0 R14: 00000000006f6b60 R15: 00000000ffffffff
>> ================================================================================
>> bond0 (unregistering): Released all slaves
>>
>> The timeout described in "man io_getevents" does not say whether it
>> can be negative or not, but as a waiting time, a negative number has
>> no meaning. So I add check to avoid this case.
> 
> It's embarrassing that this bug is still present.  See, for example,
> this discussion, started in 2015:
>   https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CACT4Y+bBxVYLQ6LtOKrKtnLthqLHcw-BMp3aqP3mjdAvr9FULQ@mail.gmail.com/
> 
> I could swear it was brought up again since then, but I can't find
> records of that.
> 

Yes. I will add this, thank you.

>> Signed-off-by: Tan Xiaojun <tanxiaojun@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>  fs/aio.c | 7 ++++++-
>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/aio.c b/fs/aio.c
>> index aaaaf4d..28e0fa6 100644
>> --- a/fs/aio.c
>> +++ b/fs/aio.c
>> @@ -2078,10 +2078,15 @@ static long do_io_getevents(aio_context_t ctx_id,
>>  		struct io_event __user *events,
>>  		struct timespec64 *ts)
>>  {
>> -	ktime_t until = ts ? timespec64_to_ktime(*ts) : KTIME_MAX;
>> +	ktime_t until;
>>  	struct kioctx *ioctx = lookup_ioctx(ctx_id);
>>  	long ret = -EINVAL;
>>  
>> +	if (ts && !timespec64_valid(ts))
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> +	until = ts ? timespec64_to_ktime(*ts) : KTIME_MAX;
>> +
>>  	if (likely(ioctx)) {
>>  		if (likely(min_nr <= nr && min_nr >= 0))
>>  			ret = read_events(ioctx, min_nr, nr, events, until);
> 
> Looks good to me.  Thanks for fixing this.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>

Thank you for your reply, I went out for a trip last week. I will send it 
officially immediately.

Xiaojun. 

> 
> .
> 


Powered by blists - more mailing lists