linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] skbuff: suppress clang object-size-mismatch error

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]

Date:   Thu, 11 Nov 2021 16:52:46 +0100
From:   Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To:     Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@...aro.org>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
        Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@...me>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>,
        Kevin Hao <haokexin@...il.com>,
        Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        llvm@...ts.linux.dev, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] skbuff: suppress clang object-size-mismatch error

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 at 16:46, Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Marco,
> On 11/11/21 01:51, Marco Elver wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 at 01:36, Tadeusz Struk<tadeusz.struk@...aro.org>  wrote:
> >> Kernel throws a runtime object-size-mismatch error in skbuff queue
> >> helpers like in [1]. This happens every time there is a pattern
> >> like the below:
> >>
> >> int skbuf_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb)
> >> {
> >>          struct sk_buff_head list;
> >>
> >>          __skb_queue_head_init(&list);
> >>          __skb_queue_tail(&list, skb); <-- offending call
> >>
> >>          return do_xmit(net, &list);
> >> }
> >>
> >> and the kernel is build with clang and -fsanitize=undefined flag set.
> >> The reason is that the functions __skb_queue_[tail|head]() access the
> >> struct sk_buff_head object via a pointer to struct sk_buff, which is
> >> much bigger in size than the sk_buff_head. This could cause undefined
> >> behavior and clang is complaining:
> >>
> >> UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in ./include/linux/skbuff.h:2023:28
> >> member access within address ffffc90000cb71c0 with insufficient space
> >> for an object of type 'struct sk_buff'
> > The config includes CONFIG_UBSAN_OBJECT_SIZE, right? Normally that's
> > disabled by default, probably why nobody has noticed these much.
>
> Right, in all the defconfigs CONFIG_UBSAN_OBJECT_SIZE is not set.
>
> >
> >> Suppress the error with __attribute__((no_sanitize("undefined")))
> >> in the skb helpers.
> > Isn't there a better way, because doing this might also suppress other
> > issues wholesale. __no_sanitize_undefined should be the last resort.
> >
>
> The other way to fix it would be to make the struct sk_buff_head
> equal in size with struct sk_buff:
>
>   struct sk_buff_head {
> -       /* These two members must be first. */
> -       struct sk_buff  *next;
> -       struct sk_buff  *prev;
> +       union {
> +               struct {
> +                       /* These two members must be first. */
> +                       struct sk_buff  *next;
> +                       struct sk_buff  *prev;
>
> -       __u32           qlen;
> -       spinlock_t      lock;
> +                       __u32           qlen;
> +                       spinlock_t      lock;
> +               };
> +               struct sk_buff  __prv;
> +       };
>   };
>
> but that's much more invasive, and I don't even have means to
> quantify this in terms of final binary size and performance
> impact. I think that would be a flat out no go.
>
>  From the other hand if you look at the __skb_queue functions
> they don't do much and at all so there is no much room for
> other issues really. I followed the suggestion in [1]:
>
> "if your function deliberately contains possible ..., you can
>   use __attribute__((no_sanitize... "

That general advice might not be compatible with what the kernel
wants, especially since UBSAN_OBJECT_SIZE is normally disabled and I
think known to cause these issues in the kernel.

I'll defer to maintainers to decide what would be the preferred way of
handling this.