linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] x86/insn, tools/x86: Fix some potential undefined behavior.

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: <20210925133944.a0648549c28b047bd9aeaeff@kernel.org>
Date:   Sat, 25 Sep 2021 13:39:44 +0900
From:   Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc:     Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        Numfor Mbiziwo-Tiapo <nums@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] x86/insn, tools/x86: Fix some potential undefined
 behavior.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 16:02:33 -0300
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org> wrote:

> Em Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 09:18:43AM -0700, Ian Rogers escreveu:
> > From: Numfor Mbiziwo-Tiapo <nums@...gle.com>
> > 
> > Don't perform unaligned loads in __get_next and __peek_nbyte_next as
> > these are forms of undefined behavior.
> > 
> > These problems were identified using the undefined behavior sanitizer
> > (ubsan) with the tools version of the code and perf test. Part of this
> > patch was previously posted here:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190724184512.162887-4-nums@google.com/
> 
> Masami, if you're ok, just process it including the tools/ bit.

Hi Arnaldo,

This version updates the tools/ too, so I think this is OK.
(do I need re-Ack?)

Thank you, 

> 
> - Arnaldo
>  
> > v4. Fixes a typo.
> > 
> > v3. Is a rebase picking up a fix for big endian architectures.
> > 
> > v2. removes the validate_next check and merges the 2 changes into one as
> > requested by Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Numfor Mbiziwo-Tiapo <nums@...gle.com>
> > Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/lib/insn.c       | 4 ++--
> >  tools/arch/x86/lib/insn.c | 4 ++--
> >  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/insn.c b/arch/x86/lib/insn.c
> > index 058f19b20465..c565def611e2 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/lib/insn.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/lib/insn.c
> > @@ -37,10 +37,10 @@
> >  	((insn)->next_byte + sizeof(t) + n <= (insn)->end_kaddr)
> >  
> >  #define __get_next(t, insn)	\
> > -	({ t r = *(t*)insn->next_byte; insn->next_byte += sizeof(t); leXX_to_cpu(t, r); })
> > +	({ t r; memcpy(&r, insn->next_byte, sizeof(t)); insn->next_byte += sizeof(t); leXX_to_cpu(t, r); })
> >  
> >  #define __peek_nbyte_next(t, insn, n)	\
> > -	({ t r = *(t*)((insn)->next_byte + n); leXX_to_cpu(t, r); })
> > +	({ t r; memcpy(&r, (insn)->next_byte + n, sizeof(t)); leXX_to_cpu(t, r); })
> >  
> >  #define get_next(t, insn)	\
> >  	({ if (unlikely(!validate_next(t, insn, 0))) goto err_out; __get_next(t, insn); })
> > diff --git a/tools/arch/x86/lib/insn.c b/tools/arch/x86/lib/insn.c
> > index c41f95815480..797699462cd8 100644
> > --- a/tools/arch/x86/lib/insn.c
> > +++ b/tools/arch/x86/lib/insn.c
> > @@ -37,10 +37,10 @@
> >  	((insn)->next_byte + sizeof(t) + n <= (insn)->end_kaddr)
> >  
> >  #define __get_next(t, insn)	\
> > -	({ t r = *(t*)insn->next_byte; insn->next_byte += sizeof(t); leXX_to_cpu(t, r); })
> > +	({ t r; memcpy(&r, insn->next_byte, sizeof(t)); insn->next_byte += sizeof(t); leXX_to_cpu(t, r); })
> >  
> >  #define __peek_nbyte_next(t, insn, n)	\
> > -	({ t r = *(t*)((insn)->next_byte + n); leXX_to_cpu(t, r); })
> > +	({ t r; memcpy(&r, (insn)->next_byte + n, sizeof(t)); leXX_to_cpu(t, r); })
> >  
> >  #define get_next(t, insn)	\
> >  	({ if (unlikely(!validate_next(t, insn, 0))) goto err_out; __get_next(t, insn); })
> > -- 
> > 2.33.0.464.g1972c5931b-goog
> 
> -- 
> 
> - Arnaldo


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>