linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/uv/time: Replace one-element array and save heap space

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: <1d4a85b8-22e3-3c0d-5beb-28dadda5848a@embeddedor.com>
Date:   Tue, 29 Sep 2020 18:14:45 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "x86@...nel.org H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc:     platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/uv/time: Replace one-element array and save heap
 space

Hi all,

Who can take this?

Thanks
--
Gustavo

On 5/21/20 18:24, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> [+CC John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> and +Kees' Reviewed-by tag]
> 
> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> 
> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 02:01:14PM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> The current codebase makes use of one-element arrays in the following
>> form:
>>
>> struct something {
>>     int length;
>>     u8 data[1];
>> };
>>
>> struct something *instance;
>>
>> instance = kmalloc(sizeof(*instance) + size, GFP_KERNEL);
>> instance->length = size;
>> memcpy(instance->data, source, size);
>>
>> but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as
>> these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99:
>>
>> struct foo {
>>         int stuff;
>>         struct boo array[];
>> };
>>
>> By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
>> in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
>> will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
>> inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. So, replace
>> the one-element array with a flexible-array member.
>>
>> Also, make use of the new struct_size() helper to properly calculate the
>> total size needed to allocate dynamic memory for struct uv_rtc_timer_head.
>> Notice that, due to the use of a one-element array, space for an extra
>> struct cpu:
>>
>> struct {
>> 	int     lcpu;           /* systemwide logical cpu number */
>> 	u64     expires;        /* next timer expiration for this cpu */
>> } cpu[1]
>>
>> was being allocated at the moment of applying the sizeof operator to
>> struct uv_rtc_timer_head in the call to kmalloc_node() at line 159:
>>
>> 159		head = kmalloc_node(sizeof(struct uv_rtc_timer_head) +
>> 160			(uv_blade_nr_possible_cpus(bid) *
>> 161				2 * sizeof(u64)),
>> 162			GFP_KERNEL, nid);
>>
>> but that extra cpu[] was never actually being accessed due to the
>> following piece of code at line 168:
>>
>> 168		head->ncpus = uv_blade_nr_possible_cpus(bid);
>>
>> and the piece of code at line 187:
>>
>> 187		for (c = 0; c < head->ncpus; c++) {
>> 188			u64 exp = head->cpu[c].expires;
>> 189			if (exp < lowest) {
>> 190				bcpu = c;
>> 191				lowest = exp;
>> 192			}
>> 193		}
>>
>> so heap space was being wasted.
>>
>> Another thing important to notice is that through the use of the
>> struct_size() helper, code at line 161:
>>
>> 161		2 * sizeof(u64)),
>>
>> is changed to now be the actual size of struct cpu; see
>> sizeof(*(p)->member) at include/linux/overflow.h:314:
>>
>> 314 #define struct_size(p, member, n)                                       \
>> 315         __ab_c_size(n,                                                  \
>> 316                     sizeof(*(p)->member) + __must_be_array((p)->member),\
>> 317                     sizeof(*(p)))
>>
>> As a side note, the original developer could have implemented code at line
>> 161: 2 * sizeof(64) as follows:
>>
>> sizeof(*head->cpu)
>>
>> This issue has been out there since 2009.
>>
>> This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle and fixed _manually_.
>>
>> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
>> [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
>> [3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@...nel.org>
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/platform/uv/uv_time.c | 7 +++----
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/platform/uv/uv_time.c b/arch/x86/platform/uv/uv_time.c
>> index 7af31b245636..993a8ae6fdfb 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/platform/uv/uv_time.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/platform/uv/uv_time.c
>> @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ struct uv_rtc_timer_head {
>>  	struct {
>>  		int	lcpu;		/* systemwide logical cpu number */
>>  		u64	expires;	/* next timer expiration for this cpu */
>> -	} cpu[1];
>> +	} cpu[];
>>  };
>>  
>>  /*
>> @@ -156,9 +156,8 @@ static __init int uv_rtc_allocate_timers(void)
>>  		struct uv_rtc_timer_head *head = blade_info[bid];
>>  
>>  		if (!head) {
>> -			head = kmalloc_node(sizeof(struct uv_rtc_timer_head) +
>> -				(uv_blade_nr_possible_cpus(bid) *
>> -					2 * sizeof(u64)),
>> +			head = kmalloc_node(struct_size(head, cpu,
>> +				uv_blade_nr_possible_cpus(bid)),
>>  				GFP_KERNEL, nid);
>>  			if (!head) {
>>  				uv_rtc_deallocate_timers();
>> -- 
>> 2.26.2
>>