linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] asm/sections: Check for overflow in memory_contains()

Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Message-ID: <20191217102831.GP25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date:   Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:28:31 +0000
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@...s.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Vincent Whitchurch <rabinv@...s.com>,
        treding@...dia.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        arnd@...db.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] asm/sections: Check for overflow in memory_contains()

On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 11:22:38AM +0100, Vincent Whitchurch wrote:
> ARM uses memory_contains() from its stacktrace code via this function:
> 
>  static inline bool in_entry_text(unsigned long addr)
>  {
>  	return memory_contains(__entry_text_start, __entry_text_end,
>  			       (void *)addr, 1);
>  }
> 
> addr is taken from the stack and can be a completely invalid.  If addr
> is 0xffffffff, there is an overflow in the pointer arithmetic in
> memory_contains() and in_entry_text() incorrectly returns true.
> 
> Fix this by adding an overflow check.  The check is done on unsigned
> longs to avoid undefined behaviour.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@...s.com>
> ---
>  include/asm-generic/sections.h | 10 +++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/sections.h b/include/asm-generic/sections.h
> index d1779d442aa5..e6e1b381c5df 100644
> --- a/include/asm-generic/sections.h
> +++ b/include/asm-generic/sections.h
> @@ -105,7 +105,15 @@ static inline int arch_is_kernel_initmem_freed(unsigned long addr)
>  static inline bool memory_contains(void *begin, void *end, void *virt,
>  				   size_t size)
>  {
> -	return virt >= begin && virt + size <= end;
> +	unsigned long membegin = (unsigned long)begin;
> +	unsigned long memend = (unsigned long)end;
> +	unsigned long objbegin = (unsigned long)virt;
> +	unsigned long objend = objbegin + size;
> +
> +	if (objend < objbegin)
> +		return false;
> +
> +	return objbegin >= membegin && objend <= memend;

Would merely changing to:

	return virt >= begin && virt <= end - size;

be sufficient ?  Is end - size possible to underflow?

>  }
>  
>  /**
> -- 
> 2.20.0
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> 

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up

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