linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] Fix insn.c misaligned address error

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:   Tue, 30 Jul 2019 09:47:45 +0900
From:   Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Numfor Mbiziwo-Tiapo <nums@...gle.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com,
        jolsa@...hat.com, namhyung@...nel.org, songliubraving@...com,
        mbd@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, irogers@...gle.com,
        eranian@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Fix insn.c misaligned address error

On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 11:22:34 +0300
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com> wrote:

> On 27/07/19 12:46 PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 16:38:06 -0300
> > Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> Em Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 11:45:12AM -0700, Numfor Mbiziwo-Tiapo escreveu:
> >>> The ubsan (undefined behavior sanitizer) version of perf throws an
> >>> error on the 'x86 instruction decoder - new instructions' function
> >>> of perf test.
> >>>
> >>> To reproduce this run:
> >>> make -C tools/perf USE_CLANG=1 EXTRA_CFLAGS="-fsanitize=undefined"
> >>>
> >>> then run: tools/perf/perf test 62 -v
> >>>
> >>> The error occurs in the __get_next macro (line 34) where an int is
> >>> read from a potentially unaligned address. Using memcpy instead of
> >>> assignment from an unaligned pointer.
> >>
> >> Since this came from the kernel, don't we have to fix it there as well?
> >> Masami, Adrian?
> > 
> > I guess we don't need it, since x86 can access "unaligned address" and
> > x86 insn decoder in kernel runs only on x86. I'm not sure about perf's
> > that part. Maybe if we run it on other arch as cross-arch application,
> > it may cause unaligned pointer issue.
> 
> Yes, theoretically Intel PT decoding can be done on any arch.
> 
> But the memcpy is probably sub-optimal for x86, so the patch as it stands
> does not seem suitable.  I notice the kernel has get_unaligned() and
> put_unaligned().
> 
> Obviously it would be better for a patch to be accepted to
> arch/x86/lib/insn.c also.

Hmm, then I rather like memcpy() for arch/x86/lib/insn.c, because it runs only
on x86.

Thank you,

> 
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > 
> >>
> >> [acme@...co perf]$ find . -name insn.c
> >> ./arch/x86/lib/insn.c
> >> ./arch/arm/kernel/insn.c
> >> ./arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c
> >> ./tools/objtool/arch/x86/lib/insn.c
> >> ./tools/perf/util/intel-pt-decoder/insn.c
> >> [acme@...co perf]$ diff -u ./tools/perf/util/intel-pt-decoder/insn.c ./arch/x86/lib/insn.c
> >> --- ./tools/perf/util/intel-pt-decoder/insn.c	2019-07-06 16:59:05.734265998 -0300
> >> +++ ./arch/x86/lib/insn.c	2019-07-06 16:59:01.369202998 -0300
> >> @@ -10,8 +10,8 @@
> >>  #else
> >>  #include <string.h>
> >>  #endif
> >> -#include "inat.h"
> >> -#include "insn.h"
> >> +#include <asm/inat.h>
> >> +#include <asm/insn.h>
> >>
> >>  /* Verify next sizeof(t) bytes can be on the same instruction */
> >>  #define validate_next(t, insn, n)	\
> >> [acme@...co perf]$
> >>
> >>
> >> - Arnaldo
> >>  
> >>> Signed-off-by: Numfor Mbiziwo-Tiapo <nums@...gle.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>  tools/perf/util/intel-pt-decoder/insn.c | 3 ++-
> >>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/intel-pt-decoder/insn.c b/tools/perf/util/intel-pt-decoder/insn.c
> >>> index ca983e2bea8b..de1944c60aa9 100644
> >>> --- a/tools/perf/util/intel-pt-decoder/insn.c
> >>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/intel-pt-decoder/insn.c
> >>> @@ -31,7 +31,8 @@
> >>>  	((insn)->next_byte + sizeof(t) + n <= (insn)->end_kaddr)
> >>>  
> >>>  #define __get_next(t, insn)	\
> >>> -	({ t r = *(t*)insn->next_byte; insn->next_byte += sizeof(t); r; })
> >>> +	({ t r; memcpy(&r, insn->next_byte, sizeof(t)); \
> >>> +		insn->next_byte += sizeof(t); r; })
> >>>  
> >>>  #define __peek_nbyte_next(t, insn, n)	\
> >>>  	({ t r = *(t*)((insn)->next_byte + n); r; })
> >>> -- 
> >>> 2.22.0.657.g960e92d24f-goog
> >>
> >> -- 
> >>
> >> - Arnaldo
> > 
> > 
> 


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>