linux-kernel - [PATCH 5.6 12/29] XArray: Fix xa_find_next for large multi-index entries

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: <20200407101453.485392545@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Tue,  7 Apr 2020 12:22:09 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 5.6 12/29] XArray: Fix xa_find_next for large multi-index entries

From: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@...radead.org>

[ Upstream commit bd40b17ca49d7d110adf456e647701ce74de2241 ]

Coverity pointed out that xas_sibling() was shifting xa_offset without
promoting it to an unsigned long first, so the shift could cause an
overflow and we'd get the wrong answer.  The fix is obvious, and the
new test-case provokes UBSAN to report an error:
runtime error: shift exponent 60 is too large for 32-bit type 'int'

Fixes: 19c30f4dd092 ("XArray: Fix xa_find_after with multi-index entries")
Reported-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Reported-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
 lib/test_xarray.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
 lib/xarray.c      |  3 ++-
 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/lib/test_xarray.c b/lib/test_xarray.c
index 55c14e8c88591..8c7d7a8468b88 100644
--- a/lib/test_xarray.c
+++ b/lib/test_xarray.c
@@ -12,6 +12,9 @@
 static unsigned int tests_run;
 static unsigned int tests_passed;
 
+static const unsigned int order_limit =
+		IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_XARRAY_MULTI) ? BITS_PER_LONG : 1;
+
 #ifndef XA_DEBUG
 # ifdef __KERNEL__
 void xa_dump(const struct xarray *xa) { }
@@ -959,6 +962,20 @@ static noinline void check_multi_find_2(struct xarray *xa)
 	}
 }
 
+static noinline void check_multi_find_3(struct xarray *xa)
+{
+	unsigned int order;
+
+	for (order = 5; order < order_limit; order++) {
+		unsigned long index = 1UL << (order - 5);
+
+		XA_BUG_ON(xa, !xa_empty(xa));
+		xa_store_order(xa, 0, order - 4, xa_mk_index(0), GFP_KERNEL);
+		XA_BUG_ON(xa, xa_find_after(xa, &index, ULONG_MAX, XA_PRESENT));
+		xa_erase_index(xa, 0);
+	}
+}
+
 static noinline void check_find_1(struct xarray *xa)
 {
 	unsigned long i, j, k;
@@ -1081,6 +1098,7 @@ static noinline void check_find(struct xarray *xa)
 	for (i = 2; i < 10; i++)
 		check_multi_find_1(xa, i);
 	check_multi_find_2(xa);
+	check_multi_find_3(xa);
 }
 
 /* See find_swap_entry() in mm/shmem.c */
diff --git a/lib/xarray.c b/lib/xarray.c
index 1d9fab7db8dad..acd1fad2e862a 100644
--- a/lib/xarray.c
+++ b/lib/xarray.c
@@ -1839,7 +1839,8 @@ static bool xas_sibling(struct xa_state *xas)
 	if (!node)
 		return false;
 	mask = (XA_CHUNK_SIZE << node->shift) - 1;
-	return (xas->xa_index & mask) > (xas->xa_offset << node->shift);
+	return (xas->xa_index & mask) >
+		((unsigned long)xas->xa_offset << node->shift);
 }
 
 /**
-- 
2.20.1