linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] maple_tree: Fix a potential memory leak, OOB access, or other unpredictable bug

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <16b7b4e1-f6aa-5ee4-a70f-9c07febaee89@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Apr 2023 23:23:32 +0800
From:   Peng Zhang <perlyzhang@...il.com>
To:     "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
        Peng Zhang <zhangpeng.00@...edance.com>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, maple-tree@...ts.infradead.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] maple_tree: Fix a potential memory leak, OOB access,
 or other unpredictable bug


在 2023/4/10 23:00, Liam R. Howlett 写道:
> * Peng Zhang <perlyzhang@...il.com> [230410 09:28]:
>> 在 2023/4/10 21:12, Liam R. Howlett 写道:
>>> * Peng Zhang <perlyzhang@...il.com> [230410 08:58]:
>>>> 在 2023/4/10 20:43, Liam R. Howlett 写道:
>>>>> * Peng Zhang <zhangpeng.00@...edance.com> [230407 00:10]:
>>>>>> In mas_alloc_nodes(), there is such a piece of code:
>>>>>> while (requested) {
>>>>>> 	...
>>>>>> 	node->node_count = 0;
>>>>>> 	...
>>>>>> }
>>>>> You don't need to quote code in your commit message since it is
>>>>> available in the change log or in the file itself.
>>>> Ok, I will change it in the next version.
>>>>>> "node->node_count = 0" means to initialize the node_count field of the
>>>>>> new node, but the node may not be a new node. It may be a node that
>>>>>> existed before and node_count has a value, setting it to 0 will cause a
>>>>>> memory leak. At this time, mas->alloc->total will be greater than the
>>>>>> actual number of nodes in the linked list, which may cause many other
>>>>>> errors. For example, out-of-bounds access in mas_pop_node(), and
>>>>>> mas_pop_node() may return addresses that should not be used.
>>>>>> Fix it by initializing node_count only for new nodes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes: 54a611b60590 ("Maple Tree: add new data structure")
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Peng Zhang <zhangpeng.00@...edance.com>
>>>>>> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>     lib/maple_tree.c | 16 ++++------------
>>>>>>     1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/lib/maple_tree.c b/lib/maple_tree.c
>>>>>> index 65fd861b30e1..9e25b3215803 100644
>>>>>> --- a/lib/maple_tree.c
>>>>>> +++ b/lib/maple_tree.c
>>>>>> @@ -1249,26 +1249,18 @@ static inline void mas_alloc_nodes(struct ma_state *mas, gfp_t gfp)
>>>>>>     	node = mas->alloc;
>>>>>>     	node->request_count = 0;
>>>>>>     	while (requested) {
>>>>>> -		max_req = MAPLE_ALLOC_SLOTS;
>>>>>> -		if (node->node_count) {
>>>>>> -			unsigned int offset = node->node_count;
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> -			slots = (void **)&node->slot[offset];
>>>>>> -			max_req -= offset;
>>>>>> -		} else {
>>>>>> -			slots = (void **)&node->slot;
>>>>>> -		}
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> +		max_req = MAPLE_ALLOC_SLOTS - node->node_count;
>>>>>> +		slots = (void **)&node->slot[node->node_count];
>>>>> Thanks, this is much cleaner.
>>>>>
>>>>>>     		max_req = min(requested, max_req);
>>>>>>     		count = mt_alloc_bulk(gfp, max_req, slots);
>>>>>>     		if (!count)
>>>>>>     			goto nomem_bulk;
>>>>>> +		if (node->node_count == 0)
>>>>>> +			node->slot[0]->node_count = 0;
>>>>>>     		node->node_count += count;
>>>>>>     		allocated += count;
>>>>>>     		node = node->slot[0];
>>>>>> -		node->node_count = 0;
>>>>>> -		node->request_count = 0;
>>>>> Why are we not clearing request_count anymore?
>>>> Because the node pointed to by the variable "node"
>>>> must not be the head node of the linked list at
>>>> this time, we only need to maintain the information
>>>> of the head node.
>>> Right, at this time it is not the head node, but could it become the
>>> head node with invalid data?  I think it can, because we don't
>>> explicitly set it in mas_pop_node()?
>> 1. Actually in mas_pop_node(), when a node becomes the head node,
>>     we initialize its total field and request_count field.
> Only if there is a request_count to begin with, right?
>
>> 2. The total field and request_count field of any non-head node,
>>     even if we initialize it, cannot be considered a valid value.
>>     Imagine if the request_count of the head node is changed, then
>>     we don't actually change the request_count of the non-head nodes,
>>     so it is an invalid value anyway.
> When we pop a node, we record the requested value and only initialize it
> to the recorded value + 1 if it wasn't zero.  So if there are no
> requests, we don't initialize it.

Yes, you are right.
I neglected that if request_count is equal to 0,
the request_count field of the new head node will not be set.
There are many implementation details of maple_tree,
which is quite error-prone.
I will modify it in the next version.

Thanks.

>
> This works because of the zeroing of that request_count that you removed
> here.  But it was, as you pointed out, not always using the right node.
> I think this needs to be moved to your new 'if' statement.
>
>>> In any case, be sure to mention that you make a change like this in the
>>> change log, like "Drop setting the resquest_count as it is unnecessary
>>> because.." in a new paragraph, so that it is not missed.
>> I thought it was a small change that wasn't written in the changelog.
>> In the next version and any future patches, I will write down the
>> details of any changes.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>>
>>>>>>     		requested -= count;
>>>>>>     	}
>>>>>>     	mas->alloc->total = allocated;
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> 2.20.1
>>>>>>