linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the kspp tree

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:   Tue, 25 Jan 2022 12:57:24 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        "Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the kspp tree

On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 11:31:54PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 22:27:32 +0900
> Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > > /*
> > >  * struct trace_event_data_offsets_<call> {
> > >  *      u32                             <item1>;
> > >  *      u32                             <item2>;
> > >  *      [...]
> > >  * };
> > >  *
> > >  * The __dynamic_array() macro will create each u32 <item>, this is
> > >  * to keep the offset of each array from the beginning of the event.
> > >  * The size of an array is also encoded, in the higher 16 bits of
> > >  * <item>.
> > >  */
> > > 
> > > So, I think -Warray-bounds is refusing to see the destination as
> > > anything except a u32, but being accessed at 4 (sizeof(u32)) + 8
> > > (address && 0xffff) (?)
> > 
> > Ah, I got it. Yes, that's right. __data_loc() will access the data
> > from the __entry, but the __rel_loc() points the same address from
> > the encoded field ("__rel_loc_foo" in this case) itself.
> > This is introduced for the user application event, which doesn't
> > know the actual __entry size because the __entry includes some
> > kernel internal defined fields.
> > 
> > > But if this is true, I would imagine there would be plenty of other
> > > warnings? I'm currently stumped.
> > 
> > That is because __rel_loc is used only in the sample code in the kernel
> > for testing. Other use-cases comes from user-space.
> > Hmm, can we skip this boundary check for this example?
> 
> If the -Warray-bounds determines the destination array size from
> the type of given pointer, we can just change the macro as below;
> 
> #define __get_rel_dynamic_array(field) 
> 			((void *)__entry +                                 \
> 			 offsetof(typeof(*__entry), __rel_loc_##field) +   \
> 			 sizeof(__entry->__rel_loc_##field) +              \
> 			 (__entry->__rel_loc_##field & 0xffff))
> 
> This must works same as __get_dynamic_array() macro.
> 
> Could you try this patch?
> 
> From 2982ba01367ec1f746a4f128512436e5325a7f9d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 23:19:30 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH] tracing: Avoid -Warray-bounds warning for __rel_loc macro
> 
> Since -Warray-bounds checks the destination size from the
> type of given pointer, __assign_rel_str() macro gets warned
> because it passes the pointer to the 'u32' field instead of
> 'trace_event_raw_*' data structure.
> Pass the data address calculated from the 'trace_event_raw_*'
> instead of 'u32' __rel_loc field.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
> Reported-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> ---
>  include/trace/trace_events.h | 7 ++++---
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/trace/trace_events.h b/include/trace/trace_events.h
> index 8c6f7c433518..65d927e059d3 100644
> --- a/include/trace/trace_events.h
> +++ b/include/trace/trace_events.h
> @@ -318,9 +318,10 @@ TRACE_MAKE_SYSTEM_STR();
>  #define __get_str(field) ((char *)__get_dynamic_array(field))
>  
>  #undef __get_rel_dynamic_array
> -#define __get_rel_dynamic_array(field)	\
> -		((void *)(&__entry->__rel_loc_##field) +	\
> -		 sizeof(__entry->__rel_loc_##field) +		\
> +#define __get_rel_dynamic_array(field)					\
> +		((void *)__entry + 					\
> +		 offsetof(typeof(*__entry), __rel_loc_##field) +	\
> +		 sizeof(__entry->__rel_loc_##field) +			\
>  		 (__entry->__rel_loc_##field & 0xffff))
>  
>  #undef __get_rel_dynamic_array_len

This patch doesn't silence the warning, but now that I see the shape of
things more clearly, let me see if I can find the right combo.

Thanks!

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook