linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] iommufd: Add top-level bounds check on kernel buffer size

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]

Message-ID: <202301271655.A51DC1CF@keescook>
Date:   Fri, 27 Jan 2023 16:57:26 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc:     Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommufd: Add top-level bounds check on kernel buffer size

On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 08:47:34PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 02:38:17PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > While the op->size assignments are already bounds-checked at static
> > initializer time, these limits aren't aggregated and tracked when doing
> > later variable range checking under -Warray-bounds. Help the compiler
> > see that we know what we're talking about, and we'll never ask to
> > write more that sizeof(ucmd.cmd) bytes during the memset() inside
> > copy_struct_from_user(). Seen under GCC 13:
> > 
> > In function 'copy_struct_from_user',
> >     inlined from 'iommufd_fops_ioctl' at ../drivers/iommu/iommufd/main.c:333:8:
> > ../include/linux/fortify-string.h:59:33: warning: '__builtin_memset' offset [57, 4294967294] is out of the bounds [0, 56] of object 'buf' with type 'union ucmd_buffer' [-Warray-bounds=]
> >    59 | #define __underlying_memset     __builtin_memset
> 
> This seems strange to me
> 
> I thought the way gcc handled this was if it knew the value must be in
> a certain range then it would check it
> 
> If it couldn't figure out any ranges it would not make a warning.
> 
> So why did it decide "rest" was in that really weird range?

It's because it got bounds-checked at the lower end (for the minimum
size test).

> 
> Is this just a compiler bug?

I don't think so. This just keeps the bounds within the buffer size now.

-- 
Kees Cook