linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 13/24] drm/etnaviv: reject timeouts with tv_nsec >= NSEC_PER

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]

Message-ID: <CAK8P3a0tKt_ZfAPnPKbaOQ9j3A+kS0LypeGA46epdyQw-knitA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Jan 2020 12:46:01 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Guido Günther <agx@...xcpu.org>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>,
        The etnaviv authors <etnaviv@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Christian Gmeiner <christian.gmeiner@...il.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Russell King <linux+etnaviv@...linux.org.uk>,
        Emil Velikov <emil.velikov@...labora.com>,
        Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/24] drm/etnaviv: reject timeouts with tv_nsec >= NSEC_PER_SEC

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 11:22 AM Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de> wrote:
>
> On Mo, 2020-01-20 at 19:47 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 6:48 PM Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> > > On Fr, 2020-01-17 at 16:47 +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
> > > > This breaks rendering here on arm64/gc7000 due to
> > > >
> > > > ioctl(6, DRM_IOCTL_ETNAVIV_GEM_CPU_PREP or DRM_IOCTL_MSM_GEM_CPU_PREP, 0xfffff7888680) = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument)
> > > > ioctl(6, DRM_IOCTL_ETNAVIV_GEM_CPU_FINI or DRM_IOCTL_QXL_CLIENTCAP, 0xfffff78885e0) = 0
> > > > ioctl(6, DRM_IOCTL_ETNAVIV_GEM_CPU_PREP or DRM_IOCTL_MSM_GEM_CPU_PREP, 0xfffff7888680) = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument)
> > > > ioctl(6, DRM_IOCTL_ETNAVIV_GEM_CPU_FINI or DRM_IOCTL_QXL_CLIENTCAP, 0xfffff78885e0) = 0
> > > > ioctl(6, DRM_IOCTL_ETNAVIV_GEM_CPU_PREP or DRM_IOCTL_MSM_GEM_CPU_PREP, 0xfffff7888680) = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument)
> > > > ioctl(6, DRM_IOCTL_ETNAVIV_GEM_CPU_FINI or DRM_IOCTL_QXL_CLIENTCAP, 0xfffff78885e0) = 0
> > > >
> > > > This is due to
> > > >
> > > >     get_abs_timeout(&req.timeout, 5000000000);
> > > >
> > > > in etna_bo_cpu_prep which can exceed NSEC_PER_SEC.
> > > >
> > > > Should i send a patch to revert that change since it breaks existing userspace?
> > >
> > > No need to revert. This patch has not been applied to the etnaviv tree
> > > yet, I guess it's just in one of Arnds branches feeding into -next.
> > >
> > > That part of userspace is pretty dumb, as it misses to renormalize
> > > tv_nsec when it overflows the second boundary. So if what I see is
> > > correct it should be enough to allow 2 * NSEC_PER_SEC, which should
> > > both reject broken large timeout and keep existing userspace working.
> >
> > Ah, so it's never more than 2 billion nanoseconds in known user space?
> > I can definitely change my patch (actually add one on top) to allow that
> > and handle it as before, or alternatively accept any 64-bit nanosecond value
> > as arm64 already did, but make it less inefficient to handle.
>
> So the broken userspace code looks like this:
>
> static inline void get_abs_timeout(struct drm_etnaviv_timespec *tv, uint64_t ns)
> {
>         struct timespec t;
>         uint32_t s = ns / 1000000000;
>         clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &t);
>         tv->tv_sec = t.tv_sec + s;
>         tv->tv_nsec = t.tv_nsec + ns - (s * 1000000000);
> }
>
> Which means it _tries_ to do the right thing by putting the billion
> part into the tv_sec member and only the remaining ns part is added to
> tv_nsec, but then it fails to propagate a tv_nsec overflow over
> NSEC_PER_SEC into tv_sec.
>
> Which means the tv_nsec should never be more than 2 * NSEC_PER_SEC in
> known userspace. I would prefer if we could make the interface as
> strict as possible (i.e. no arbitrary large numbers in tv_nsec), while
> keeping this specific corner case working.

I've added a patch on top of my 2038 branch, please have a look at that.

      Arnd