linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v5 2/3] printk-rb: new printk ringbuffer implementation (reader)

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: <20191203120622.zux33do54rmjafns@pathway.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 3 Dec 2019 13:06:22 +0100
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To:     John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 2/3] printk-rb: new printk ringbuffer
 implementation (reader)

On Thu 2019-11-28 02:58:34, John Ogness wrote:
> Add the reader implementation for the new ringbuffer.
> 
> Signed-off-by: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
> ---
>  kernel/printk/printk_ringbuffer.c | 234 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  kernel/printk/printk_ringbuffer.h |  12 +-
>  2 files changed, 245 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk_ringbuffer.c b/kernel/printk/printk_ringbuffer.c
> index 09c32e52fd40..f85762713583 100644
> --- a/kernel/printk/printk_ringbuffer.c
> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk_ringbuffer.c
> @@ -674,3 +674,237 @@ void prb_commit(struct prb_reserved_entry *e)
>  	local_irq_restore(e->irqflags);
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(prb_commit);
> +
> +/*
> + * Given @blk_lpos, return a pointer to the raw data from the data block
> + * and calculate the size of the data part. A NULL pointer is returned
> + * if @blk_lpos specifies values that could never be legal.
> + *
> + * This function (used by readers) performs strict validation on the lpos
> + * values to possibly detect bugs in the writer code. A WARN_ON_ONCE() is
> + * triggered if an internal error is detected.
> + */
> +static char *get_data(struct prb_data_ring *data_ring,
> +		      struct prb_data_blk_lpos *blk_lpos,
> +		      unsigned long *data_size)
> +{
> +	struct prb_data_block *db;
> +
> +	if (blk_lpos->begin == INVALID_LPOS &&
> +	    blk_lpos->next == INVALID_LPOS) {
> +		/* descriptor without a data block */
> +		return NULL;
> +	} else if (DATA_WRAPS(data_ring, blk_lpos->begin) ==
> +		   DATA_WRAPS(data_ring, blk_lpos->next)) {
> +		/* regular data block */
> +		if (WARN_ON_ONCE(blk_lpos->next <= blk_lpos->begin))
> +			return NULL;
> +		db = to_block(data_ring, blk_lpos->begin);
> +		*data_size = blk_lpos->next - blk_lpos->begin;
> +
> +	} else if ((DATA_WRAPS(data_ring, blk_lpos->begin) + 1 ==
> +		    DATA_WRAPS(data_ring, blk_lpos->next)) ||
> +		   ((DATA_WRAPS(data_ring, blk_lpos->begin) ==
> +		     DATA_WRAPS(data_ring, -1UL)) &&
> +		    (DATA_WRAPS(data_ring, blk_lpos->next) == 0))) {

I am a bit confused. I would expect that (-1UL + 1) = 0. So the second
condition after || looks just like a special variant of the first
valid condition.

Or do I miss anything? Is there a problems with type casting?


> +		/* wrapping data block */
> +		db = to_block(data_ring, 0);
> +		*data_size = DATA_INDEX(data_ring, blk_lpos->next);
> +
> +	} else {
> +		WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> +		return NULL;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* A valid data block will always be aligned to the ID size. */
> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(blk_lpos->begin !=
> +			 ALIGN(blk_lpos->begin, sizeof(db->id))) ||
> +	    WARN_ON_ONCE(blk_lpos->next !=
> +			 ALIGN(blk_lpos->next, sizeof(db->id)))) {
> +		return NULL;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* A valid data block will always have at least an ID. */
> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(*data_size < sizeof(db->id)))
> +		return NULL;
> +
> +	/* Subtract descriptor ID space from size. */
> +	*data_size -= sizeof(db->id);
> +
> +	return &db->data[0];
> +}
> +
> +/* Given @blk_lpos, copy an expected @len of data into the provided buffer. */
> +static bool copy_data(struct prb_data_ring *data_ring,
> +		      struct prb_data_blk_lpos *blk_lpos, u16 len, char *buf,
> +		      unsigned int buf_size)
> +{
> +	unsigned long data_size;
> +	char *data;
> +
> +	/* Caller might not want the data. */
> +	if (!buf || !buf_size)
> +		return true;
> +
> +	data = get_data(data_ring, blk_lpos, &data_size);
> +	if (!data)
> +		return false;
> +
> +	/* Actual cannot be less than expected. */
> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(data_size < len))
> +		return false;

I do not have a good feeling that the record gets lost here.

I could imagine that a writer would reserve more space than
needed in the end. Then it would want to modify desc.info.text_len
and could do a mistake.

By other words, I would expect a bug on the writer side here.
And I would try to preserve the data by calling:

pr_warn_once("Wrong data_size (%lu) for data: %.*s\n", data_size,
data_size, data);

Well, I do not resist on it. WARN_ON_ONCE() is fine as well.

> +
> +	data_size = min_t(u16, buf_size, len);
> +
> +	if (!WARN_ON_ONCE(!data_size))
> +		memcpy(&buf[0], data, data_size);
> +	return true;
> +}
> +

Otherwise it looks good to me. I wonder how the conversion
of the printk.c code will look with this API.

Best Regards,
Petr