[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20210608135633.167bd07cf8011a792a128976@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 13:56:33 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, "Lin, Zhenpeng" <zplin@....edu>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
"Lin, Zhenpeng" <zplin@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] mm/slub: Actually fix freelist pointer vs
redzoning
On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 11:39:55 -0700 Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> It turns out that SLUB redzoning ("slub_debug=Z") checks from
> s->object_size rather than from s->inuse (which is normally bumped
> to make room for the freelist pointer), so a cache created with an
> object size less than 24 would have the freelist pointer written beyond
> s->object_size, causing the redzone to be corrupted by the freelist
> pointer. This was very visible with "slub_debug=ZF":
>
> BUG test (Tainted: G B ): Right Redzone overwritten
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> INFO: 0xffff957ead1c05de-0xffff957ead1c05df @offset=1502. First byte 0x1a instead of 0xbb
> INFO: Slab 0xffffef3950b47000 objects=170 used=170 fp=0x0000000000000000 flags=0x8000000000000200
> INFO: Object 0xffff957ead1c05d8 @offset=1496 fp=0xffff957ead1c0620
>
> Redzone (____ptrval____): bb bb bb bb bb bb bb bb ........
> Object (____ptrval____): 00 00 00 00 00 f6 f4 a5 ........
> Redzone (____ptrval____): 40 1d e8 1a aa @....
> Padding (____ptrval____): 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ........
>
> Adjust the offset to stay within s->object_size.
>
> (Note that no caches of in this size range are known to exist in the
> kernel currently.)
We already have
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/6746FEEA-FD69-4792-8DDA-C78F5FE7DA02@psu.edu.
Is this patch better?
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -3689,7 +3689,6 @@ static int calculate_sizes(struct kmem_cache *s, int forced_order)
> {
> slab_flags_t flags = s->flags;
> unsigned int size = s->object_size;
> - unsigned int freepointer_area;
> unsigned int order;
>
> /*
> @@ -3698,13 +3697,6 @@ static int calculate_sizes(struct kmem_cache *s, int forced_order)
> * the possible location of the free pointer.
> */
> size = ALIGN(size, sizeof(void *));
> - /*
> - * This is the area of the object where a freepointer can be
> - * safely written. If redzoning adds more to the inuse size, we
> - * can't use that portion for writing the freepointer, so
> - * s->offset must be limited within this for the general case.
> - */
> - freepointer_area = size;
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG
> /*
> @@ -3730,7 +3722,7 @@ static int calculate_sizes(struct kmem_cache *s, int forced_order)
>
> /*
> * With that we have determined the number of bytes in actual use
> - * by the object. This is the potential offset to the free pointer.
> + * by the object and redzoning.
> */
> s->inuse = size;
>
> @@ -3753,13 +3745,13 @@ static int calculate_sizes(struct kmem_cache *s, int forced_order)
> */
> s->offset = size;
> size += sizeof(void *);
> - } else if (freepointer_area > sizeof(void *)) {
> + } else {
> /*
> * Store freelist pointer near middle of object to keep
> * it away from the edges of the object to avoid small
> * sized over/underflows from neighboring allocations.
> */
> - s->offset = ALIGN(freepointer_area / 2, sizeof(void *));
> + s->offset = ALIGN_DOWN(s->object_size / 2, sizeof(void *));
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG
> --
> 2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists