linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/8] xen/blkfront: don't trust the backend response data blindly

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: <a19a13ba-a386-2808-ad85-338d47085fa6@suse.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 May 2021 17:12:12 +0200
From:   Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
To:     Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Cc:     Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@...rix.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] xen/blkfront: don't trust the backend response data
 blindly

On 17.05.2021 16:23, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 17.05.21 16:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 13.05.2021 12:02, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> @@ -1574,10 +1580,16 @@ static irqreturn_t blkif_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>>   	spin_lock_irqsave(&rinfo->ring_lock, flags);
>>>    again:
>>>   	rp = rinfo->ring.sring->rsp_prod;
>>> +	if (RING_RESPONSE_PROD_OVERFLOW(&rinfo->ring, rp)) {
>>> +		pr_alert("%s: illegal number of responses %u\n",
>>> +			 info->gd->disk_name, rp - rinfo->ring.rsp_cons);
>>> +		goto err;
>>> +	}
>>>   	rmb(); /* Ensure we see queued responses up to 'rp'. */
>>
>> I think you want to insert after the barrier.
> 
> Why? The relevant variable which is checked is "rp". The result of the
> check is in no way depending on the responses themselves. And any change
> of rsp_cons is protected by ring_lock, so there is no possibility of
> reading an old value here.

But this is a standard double read situation: You might check a value
and then (via a separate read) use a different one past the barrier.

Jan