[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202203151329.0483BED@keescook>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 13:37:43 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
Cc: dave.hansen@...el.com, len.brown@...el.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, reinette.chatre@...el.com,
dan.j.williams@...el.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] elf: Don't write past end of notes for regset gap
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 01:17:06PM -0700, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> In fill_thread_core_info() the ptrace accessible registers are collected
> to be written out as notes in a core file. The note array is allocated
> from a size calculated by iterating the user regset view, and counting the
> regsets that have a non-zero core_note_type. However, this only allows for
> there to be non-zero core_note_type at the end of the regset view. If
> there are any gaps in the middle, fill_thread_core_info() will overflow the
> note allocation, as it iterates over the size of the view and the
> allocation would be smaller than that.
>
> There doesn't appear to be any arch that has gaps such that they exceed
> the notes allocation, but the code is brittle and tries to support
> something it doesn't. It could be fixed by increasing the allocation size,
> but instead just have the note collecting code utilize the array better.
> This way the allocation can stay smaller.
>
> Even in the case of no arch's that have gaps in their regset views, this
> introduces a change in the resulting indicies of t->notes. It does not
> introduce any changes to the core file itself, because any blank notes are
> skipped in write_note_info().
Hm, yes, fill_note_info() does an initial count & allocate. Then
fill_thread_core_info() writes them.
>
> This fix is derrived from an earlier one[0] by Yu-cheng Yu.
>
> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180717162502.32274-1-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com/
>
> Co-developed-by: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
> ---
> fs/binfmt_elf.c | 15 ++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/binfmt_elf.c b/fs/binfmt_elf.c
> index d61543fbd652..a48f85e3c017 100644
> --- a/fs/binfmt_elf.c
> +++ b/fs/binfmt_elf.c
> @@ -1757,7 +1757,7 @@ static int fill_thread_core_info(struct elf_thread_core_info *t,
> const struct user_regset_view *view,
> long signr, size_t *total)
> {
> - unsigned int i;
> + unsigned int note_iter, view_iter;
>
> /*
> * NT_PRSTATUS is the one special case, because the regset data
> @@ -1777,11 +1777,11 @@ static int fill_thread_core_info(struct elf_thread_core_info *t,
>
> /*
> * Each other regset might generate a note too. For each regset
> - * that has no core_note_type or is inactive, we leave t->notes[i]
> - * all zero and we'll know to skip writing it later.
> + * that has no core_note_type or is inactive, skip it.
> */
> - for (i = 1; i < view->n; ++i) {
> - const struct user_regset *regset = &view->regsets[i];
> + note_iter = 1;
> + for (view_iter = 1; view_iter < view->n; ++view_iter) {
> + const struct user_regset *regset = &view->regsets[view_iter];
> int note_type = regset->core_note_type;
> bool is_fpreg = note_type == NT_PRFPREG;
> void *data;
> @@ -1800,10 +1800,11 @@ static int fill_thread_core_info(struct elf_thread_core_info *t,
> if (is_fpreg)
> SET_PR_FPVALID(&t->prstatus);
>
info->thread_notes contains the count. Since fill_thread_core_info()
passes a info member by reference, it might make sense to just pass info
itself, then the size can be written and a bounds-check can be added
here:
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(i >= info->thread_notes))
continue;
> - fill_note(&t->notes[i], is_fpreg ? "CORE" : "LINUX",
> + fill_note(&t->notes[note_iter], is_fpreg ? "CORE" : "LINUX",
> note_type, ret, data);
>
> - *total += notesize(&t->notes[i]);
> + *total += notesize(&t->notes[note_iter]);
> + note_iter++;
> }
>
> return 1;
> --
> 2.17.1
>
If that can get adjusted, I'd be happy to carry this patch separately in
for-next/execve (or I can Ack it and it can go with the others here in
the series).
(And in a perfect world, I'd *love* a KUnit test to exercise this logic,
but I don't think we're there yet with function mocking, etc.)
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists