linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kasan: fix the missing underflow in memmove and memcpy with CONFIG_KASAN

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: <a3a5e118-e6da-8d6d-5073-931653fa2808@free.fr>
Date:   Mon, 30 Sep 2019 10:57:39 +0200
From:   Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@...e.fr>
To:     Walter Wu <walter-zh.wu@...iatek.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kasan: fix the missing underflow in memmove and memcpy
 with CONFIG_KASAN_GENERIC=y

On 30/09/2019 06:36, Walter Wu wrote:

>  bool check_memory_region(unsigned long addr, size_t size, bool write,
>                                 unsigned long ret_ip)
>  {
> +       if (long(size) < 0) {
> +               kasan_report_invalid_size(src, dest, len, _RET_IP_);
> +               return false;
> +       }
> +
>         return check_memory_region_inline(addr, size, write, ret_ip);
>  }

Is it expected that memcpy/memmove may sometimes (incorrectly) be passed
a negative value? (It would indeed turn up as a "large" size_t)

IMO, casting to long is suspicious.

There seem to be some two implicit assumptions.

1) size >= ULONG_MAX/2 is invalid input
2) casting a size >= ULONG_MAX/2 to long yields a negative value

1) seems reasonable because we can't copy more than half of memory to
the other half of memory. I suppose the constraint could be even tighter,
but it's not clear where to draw the line, especially when considering
32b vs 64b arches.

2) is implementation-defined, and gcc works "as expected" (clang too
probably) https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Integers-implementation.html

A comment might be warranted to explain the rationale.

Regards.