linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Perform a bounds check in arch_add

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 5 Sep 2019 09:52:44 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Alastair D'Silva <alastair@....ibm.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Perform a bounds check in arch_add_memory

On 04.09.19 07:25, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-09-02 at 09:28 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 02.09.19 01:54, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2019-08-27 at 09:13 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 27.08.19 08:39, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2019-08-27 at 08:28 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue 27-08-19 15:20:46, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Alastair D'Silva <alastair@...ilva.org>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is possible for firmware to allocate memory ranges
>>>>>>> outside
>>>>>>> the range of physical memory that we support
>>>>>>> (MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't that count as a FW bug? Do you have any evidence of
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> field? Just wondering...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not outside our lab, but OpenCAPI attached LPC memory is
>>>>> assigned
>>>>> addresses based on the slot/NPU it is connected to. These
>>>>> addresses
>>>>> prior to:
>>>>> 4ffe713b7587 ("powerpc/mm: Increase the max addressable memory
>>>>> to
>>>>> 2PB")
>>>>> were inaccessible and resulted in bogus sections - see our
>>>>> discussion
>>>>> on 'mm: Trigger bug on if a section is not found in
>>>>> __section_nr'.
>>>>> Doing this check here was your suggestion :)
>>>>>
>>>>> It's entirely possible that a similar problem will occur in the
>>>>> future,
>>>>> and it's cheap to guard against, which is why I've added this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you keep it here, I guess this should be wrapped by a
>>>> WARN_ON_ONCE().
>>>>
>>>> If we move it to common code (e.g., __add_pages() or
>>>> add_memory()),
>>>> then
>>>> probably not. I can see that s390x allows to configure
>>>> MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS,
>>>> so the check could actually make sense.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I couldn't see a nice platform indepedent way to determine the
>>> allowable address range, but if there is, then I'll move this to
>>> the
>>> generic code instead.
>>>
>>
>> At least on the !ZONE_DEVICE path we have
>>
>> __add_memory() -> register_memory_resource() ...
>>
>> return ERR_PTR(-E2BIG);
>>
>>
>> I was thinking about something like
>>
>> int add_pages()
>> {
>> 	if ((start + size - 1) >> MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS)
>> 		return -E2BIG;	
>>
>> 	return arch_add_memory(...)
>> }
>>
>> And switching users of arch_add_memory() to add_pages(). However, x86
>> already has an add_pages() function, so that would need some more
>> thought.
>>
>> Maybe simply renaming the existing add_pages() to arch_add_pages().
>>
>> add_pages(): Create virtual mapping
>> __add_pages(): Don't create virtual mapping
>>
>> arch_add_memory(): Arch backend for add_pages()
>> arch_add_pages(): Arch backend for __add_pages()
>>
>> It would be even more consistent if we would have arch_add_pages()
>> vs.
>> __arch_add_pages().
> 
> Looking a bit further, I think a good course of action would be to add
> the check to memory_hotplug.c:check_hotplug_memory_range().
> 
> This would be the least invasive, and could check both
> MAX_POSSIBLE_PHYSMEM_BITS and MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS.

You won't be able to catch the memremap path that way, just saying. But
at least it would be an easy change.

> 
> With that in mind, we can drop this patch.
> 


-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb