linux-kernel - RE: Buggy commit tracked to: "Re: [PATCH 2/9] iov_iter: move rw_copy_check_uvector() into lib/iov

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: <7c642593ca08469f8c00c0de10a09540@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date:   Sat, 24 Oct 2020 21:12:11 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Segher Boessenkool' <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
CC:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        "linux-aio@...ck.org" <linux-aio@...ck.org>,
        "linux-mips@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "keyrings@...r.kernel.org" <keyrings@...r.kernel.org>,
        "sparclinux@...r.kernel.org" <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kernel-team@...roid.com" <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        "io-uring@...r.kernel.org" <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        "linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
        'Greg KH' <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org" 
        <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: RE: Buggy commit tracked to: "Re: [PATCH 2/9] iov_iter: move
 rw_copy_check_uvector() into lib/iov_iter.c"

From: Segher Boessenkool
> Sent: 24 October 2020 18:29
> 
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 09:28:59PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Segher Boessenkool
> > > Sent: 23 October 2020 19:27
> > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 06:58:57PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 03:09:30PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > On arm64 when callee expects a 32bit argument, the caller is *not* responsible
> > > > for clearing the upper half of 64bit register used to pass the value - it only
> > > > needs to store the actual value into the lower half.  The callee must consider
> > > > the contents of the upper half of that register as undefined.  See AAPCS64 (e.g.
> > > > https://github.com/ARM-software/abi-aa/blob/master/aapcs64/aapcs64.rst#parameter-passing-rules
> > > > ); AFAICS, the relevant bit is
> > > > 	"Unlike in the 32-bit AAPCS, named integral values must be narrowed by
> > > > the callee rather than the caller."
> > >
> > > Or the formal rule:
> > >
> > > C.9 	If the argument is an Integral or Pointer Type, the size of the
> > > 	argument is less than or equal to 8 bytes and the NGRN is less
> > > 	than 8, the argument is copied to the least significant bits in
> > > 	x[NGRN]. The NGRN is incremented by one. The argument has now
> > > 	been allocated.
> >
> > So, in essence, if the value is in a 64bit register the calling
> > code is independent of the actual type of the formal parameter.
> > Clearly a value might need explicit widening.
> 
> No, this says that if you pass a 32-bit integer in a 64-bit register,
> then the top 32 bits of that register hold an undefined value.

That's sort of what I meant.
The 'normal' junk in the hight bits will there because the variable
in the calling code is wider.

> > I've found a copy of the 64 bit arm instruction set.
> > Unfortunately it is alpha sorted and repetitive so shows none
> > of the symmetry and makes things difficult to find.
> 
> All of this is ABI, not ISA.  Look at the AAPCS64 pointed to above.
> 
> > But, contrary to what someone suggested most register writes
> > (eg from arithmetic) seem to zero/extend the high bits.
> 
> Everything that writes a "w" does, yes.  But that has nothing to do with
> the parameter passing rules, that is ABI.  It just means that very often
> a 32-bit integer will be passed zero-extended in a 64-bit register, but
> that is just luck (or not, it makes finding bugs harder ;-) )

Working out why the code is wrong is more of an ISA issue than an ABI one.
It may be an ABI one, but the analysis is ISA.

I've written a lot of asm over the years - decoding compiler generated
asm isn't that hard.
At least ARM doesn't have annulled delay slots.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)