linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 57/63] powerpc/signal32: Use struct

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: <874kbke2ke.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
Date:   Fri, 20 Aug 2021 22:13:53 +1000
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
        clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 57/63] powerpc/signal32: Use struct_group() to zero
 spe regs

Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu> writes:
> Le 20/08/2021 à 09:49, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
>> Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> writes:
>>> In preparation for FORTIFY_SOURCE performing compile-time and run-time
>>> field bounds checking for memset(), avoid intentionally writing across
>>> neighboring fields.
>>>
>>> Add a struct_group() for the spe registers so that memset() can correctly reason
>>> about the size:
>>>
>>>     In function 'fortify_memset_chk',
>>>         inlined from 'restore_user_regs.part.0' at arch/powerpc/kernel/signal_32.c:539:3:
>>>>> include/linux/fortify-string.h:195:4: error: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with attribute warning: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Werror=attribute-warning]
>>>       195 |    __write_overflow_field();
>>>           |    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
>>> Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
>>> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
>>> Cc: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
>>> Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
>>> Cc: linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
>>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>>> ---
>>>   arch/powerpc/include/asm/processor.h | 6 ++++--
>>>   arch/powerpc/kernel/signal_32.c      | 6 +++---
>>>   2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/processor.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/processor.h
>>> index f348e564f7dd..05dc567cb9a8 100644
>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/processor.h
>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/processor.h
>>> @@ -191,8 +191,10 @@ struct thread_struct {
>>>   	int		used_vsr;	/* set if process has used VSX */
>>>   #endif /* CONFIG_VSX */
>>>   #ifdef CONFIG_SPE
>>> -	unsigned long	evr[32];	/* upper 32-bits of SPE regs */
>>> -	u64		acc;		/* Accumulator */
>>> +	struct_group(spe,
>>> +		unsigned long	evr[32];	/* upper 32-bits of SPE regs */
>>> +		u64		acc;		/* Accumulator */
>>> +	);
>>>   	unsigned long	spefscr;	/* SPE & eFP status */
>>>   	unsigned long	spefscr_last;	/* SPEFSCR value on last prctl
>>>   					   call or trap return */
>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/signal_32.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/signal_32.c
>>> index 0608581967f0..77b86caf5c51 100644
>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/signal_32.c
>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/signal_32.c
>>> @@ -532,11 +532,11 @@ static long restore_user_regs(struct pt_regs *regs,
>>>   	regs_set_return_msr(regs, regs->msr & ~MSR_SPE);
>>>   	if (msr & MSR_SPE) {
>>>   		/* restore spe registers from the stack */
>>> -		unsafe_copy_from_user(current->thread.evr, &sr->mc_vregs,
>>> -				      ELF_NEVRREG * sizeof(u32), failed);
>>> +		unsafe_copy_from_user(&current->thread.spe, &sr->mc_vregs,
>>> +				      sizeof(current->thread.spe), failed);
>> 
>> This makes me nervous, because the ABI is that we copy ELF_NEVRREG *
>> sizeof(u32) bytes, not whatever sizeof(current->thread.spe) happens to
>> be.
>> 
>> ie. if we use sizeof an inadvertent change to the fields in
>> thread_struct could change how many bytes we copy out to userspace,
>> which would be an ABI break.
>> 
>> And that's not that hard to do, because it's not at all obvious that the
>> size and layout of fields in thread_struct affects the user ABI.
>> 
>> At the same time we don't want to copy the right number of bytes but
>> the wrong content, so from that point of view using sizeof is good :)
>> 
>> The way we handle it in ptrace is to have BUILD_BUG_ON()s to verify that
>> things match up, so maybe we should do that here too.
>> 
>> ie. add:
>> 
>> 	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(current->thread.spe) == ELF_NEVRREG * sizeof(u32));
>
> You mean != I guess ?

Gah. Yes I do :)

cheers