linux-kernel - Re: Regression: memory corruption on Atmel SAMA5D31

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:   Sat, 9 Apr 2022 15:02:37 +0200
From:   Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>
To:     Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
        Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
        Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
Cc:     Daniels Umanovskis <du@...ntia.se>,
        Patrice Vilchez <patrice.vilchez@...rochip.com>,
        Cristian Birsan <Cristian.Birsan@...rochip.com>,
        Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...rochip.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Regression: memory corruption on Atmel SAMA5D31

Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker. Top-posting for once,
to make this easily accessible to everyone.

Can somebody please provide a status update what the outcome of this
thread? It started as a regression report, that's why I'm tracking it --
but seems nothing happened for a while. Was it fixed? Did it fall
through the cracks? Or did it turn out that this is not a regression? If
the latter: please feel free to include a paragraph like "#regzbot
invalid: a few words why this is invalid in the lengths of a mail subject"

Ciao, Thorsten

#regzbot poke

On 10.03.22 11:40, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2022-03-10 10:58, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> [bringing this threadlet back to the lists, hope that's ok]
>>
>> On 2022-03-10 09:27, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>>>  From that article:
>>> https://lwn.net/Articles/885941/
>>>
>>> I read:
>>>
>>> "Koschel included a patch fixing a bug in the USB subsystem where the 
>>> iterator passed to this macro was used after the exit from the macro, 
>>> which is a dangerous thing to do. Depending on what happens within the 
>>> list, the contents of that iterator could be something surprising, even 
>>> in the absence of speculative execution. Koschel fixed the problem by 
>>> reworking the code in question to stop using the iterator after the loop. "
>>>
>>> USB subsystem, "struct list_head *next, *prev;"... Some keywords present 
>>> there... worth a try?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>    Nicolas
>>
>> gr_udc.c is not built with the config that is in use, which is sad because
>> it looked like a good candidate.
> 
> at91_usba_udc.c, which is included, has the same pattern. But alas, doing
> the equivalent patch there does not fix things either. I.e. (whitespace
> damaged)
> 
> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/atmel_usba_udc.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/atmel_usba_udc.c
> @@ -863,6 +863,7 @@ static int usba_ep_dequeue(struct usb_ep *_ep, struct usb_request *_req)
>         struct usba_request *req;
>         unsigned long flags;
>         u32 status;
> +       bool found = false;
> 
>         DBG(DBG_GADGET | DBG_QUEUE, "ep_dequeue: %s, req %p\n",
>                         ep->ep.name, _req);
> @@ -870,11 +871,13 @@ static int usba_ep_dequeue(struct usb_ep *_ep, struct usb_request *_req)
>         spin_lock_irqsave(&udc->lock, flags);
> 
>         list_for_each_entry(req, &ep->queue, queue) {
> -               if (&req->req == _req)
> +               if (&req->req == _req) {
> +                       found = true;
>                         break;
> +               }
>         }
> 
> -       if (&req->req != _req) {
> +       if (!found) {
>                 spin_unlock_irqrestore(&udc->lock, flags);
>                 return -EINVAL;
>         }
> 
> The test started out with 3 good hashes though, so I got my hopes up. But
> no, it's about the same failure rate as usual. I have the feeling that I
> will never again trust a single sha256sum...
> 
> Cheers,
> Peter