linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] counter: Adjust final parameter type in function and signal callbacks

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:   Wed, 2 Nov 2022 13:23:51 -0700
From:   Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     William Breathitt Gray <william.gray@...aro.org>,
        linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>,
        Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
        Patrick Havelange <patrick.havelange@...ensium.com>,
        Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Oleksij Rempel <linux@...pel-privat.de>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier@...s.st.com>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        Julien Panis <jpanis@...libre.com>,
        David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-omap@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] counter: Adjust final parameter type in function and
 signal callbacks

On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 12:21:23PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 10:22:14AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > The ->signal_u32_read(), ->count_u32_read(), and ->count_u32_write()
> > callbacks in 'struct counter_comp' expect the final parameter to have a
> > type of 'u32' or 'u32 *' but the ops functions that are being assigned
> > to those callbacks have an enumerated type as the final parameter. While
> > these are compatible from an ABI perspective, they will fail the
> > aforementioned CFI checks.
> > 
> > Adjust the type of the final parameter in the ->signal_read(),
> > ->function_read(), and ->function_write() callbacks in 'struct
> > counter_ops' and their implementations to match the prototypes in
> > 'struct counter_comp' to clear up these warnings and CFI failures.
> 
> I don't understand these changes. Where do 'struct counter_comp'
> and 'struct counter_ops' get confused? I can only find matching
> ops/assignments/calls, so I must be missing something. This looks like
> a loss of CFI granularity instead of having wrappers added if there is
> an enum/u32 conversion needed somewhere.

Right, I am not the biggest fan of this change myself and it is entirely
possible that I am misreading the warnings from the commit message but I
do not see how

        comp_node.comp.signal_u32_read = counter->ops->signal_read;

and

        comp_node.comp.count_u32_read = counter->ops->function_read;

in counter_add_watch(),

        comp.signal_u32_read = counter->ops->signal_read;

in counter_signal_attrs_create(), and

        comp.count_u32_read = counter->ops->function_read;
        comp.count_u32_write = counter->ops->function_write;

in counter_count_attrs_create() are currently safe under kCFI, since the
final parameter type of the prototypes in 'struct counter_ops' does not
match the final parameter type of the prototypes in 'struct
counter_comp'. I would expect the indirect calls in counter_get_data()
and counter_comp_u32_show() to fail currently.

I briefly looked at making the 'struct counter_comp' callbacks match the
'struct counter_ops' ones but the COUNTER_COMP macros in
include/linux/counter.h made it seem like these callbacks might be used
by implementations that might use different enumerated types as the
final parameter. I can look a little closer to see if we can make
everything match.

I am not sure how wrappers would work here, I can take a look into how
feasible that is.

Cheers,
Nathan