linux-kernel - Re: LTP: shmget02 fails on compat mode - 64-bit kernel and 32-bit userspace

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: <b3b0d222-b745-07bc-8dcd-38f762343c84@colorfullife.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 May 2023 19:53:07 +0200
From:   Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        LTP List <ltp@...ts.linux.it>, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
        "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
        Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>,
        chrubis <chrubis@...e.cz>, Petr Vorel <pvorel@...e.cz>,
        Martin Doucha <mdoucha@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: LTP: shmget02 fails on compat mode - 64-bit kernel and 32-bit
 userspace

Hi all,

On 5/19/23 12:57, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2023, at 11:17, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
>> LTP running on compat mode where the tests run on
>> 64-bit kernel and 32-bit userspace are noticed on a list of failures.
>>
>> What would be the best way to handle this rare combination of failures ?
>>
>> * arm64: juno-r2-compat, qemu_arm64-compat and qemu_x86_64-compat
>>      - shmget02
>>
>> Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@...aro.org>
>>
>> tst_hugepage.c:83: TINFO: 0 hugepage(s) reserved
>> tst_test.c:1558: TINFO: Timeout per run is 0h 02m 30s
>> tst_kconfig.c:87: TINFO: Parsing kernel config '/proc/config.gz'
>> shmget02.c:95: TPASS: shmget(1644199826, 2048, 1024) : ENOENT (2)
>> shmget02.c:95: TPASS: shmget(1627422610, 2048, 1536) : EEXIST (17)
>> <4>[   84.678150] __vm_enough_memory: pid: 513, comm: shmget02, not
>> enough memory for the allocation
>> shmget02.c:95: TPASS: shmget(1644199826, 0, 1536) : EINVAL (22)
>> shmget02.c:95: TFAIL: shmget(1644199826, 4278190080, 1536) expected
>> EINVAL: ENOMEM (12)
> Adding Liam Howlett, Davidlohr Bueso and Manfred Spraul to Cc, they
> have worked on the shm code in the past few years.
>
> This is the line
>
> 	{&shmkey1, SHMMAX + 1, IPC_CREAT | IPC_EXCL, 0, 0, EINVAL},
>
> from
>
> https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/04e8f2f4fd949/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmget/shmget02.c#LL59C1-L59C61
>
> right?
>
> I think this is a result of SHMMAX being defined as
> #define SHMMAX (ULONG_MAX - (1UL << 24)), so the kernel would
> likely use a large 64-bit value here, while the 32-bit user
> space uses a much smaller limit.
>
> The expected return code likely comes from
>
> static int newseg(struct ipc_namespace *ns, struct ipc_params *params)
> {
> ...
>          if (size < SHMMIN || size > ns->shm_ctlmax)
>                  return -EINVAL;
>          
> but if ns->shm_ctlmax is probably set to the 64-bit value here.
> It would then trigger the accounting limit in __shmem_file_setup():
>
>          if (shmem_acct_size(flags, size))
>                  return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>
> My feeling is that the kernel in this case works as expected,
> and I wouldn't see this as a bug. On the other hand, this
> can probably be addressed in the kernel by adding a check for
> compat tasks like
>
> --- a/ipc/shm.c
> +++ b/ipc/shm.c
> @@ -714,7 +714,8 @@ static int newseg(struct ipc_namespace *ns, struct ipc_params *params)
>          char name[13];
>          vm_flags_t acctflag = 0;
>   
> -       if (size < SHMMIN || size > ns->shm_ctlmax)
> +       if (size < SHMMIN || size > ns->shm_ctlmax ||
> +          in_compat_syscall() && size > COMPAT_SHMMAX))
>                  return -EINVAL;
>   
>          if (numpages << PAGE_SHIFT < size)
>
I would consider this as ugly: ns->shm_ctlmax can be configured by 
writing to /proc/sys/kernel/shmmax.

You can break the test case on 64-bit as well, just by writing SHMMAX+1 
to /proc/sys/kernel/shmmax

Thus I think the test case is flawed:

It is testing the overflow behavior for a configurable value by testing 
with default+1. But sometimes the actual value is not the default.

Are the tests running as root?

What about intentionally setting the value to something useful?

tmp=$(cat /proc/sys/kernel/shmmax)

echo "1234" > /proc/sys/kernel/shmmax

semget() based on {&shmkey1, 1234 + 1, IPC_CREAT | IPC_EXCL, 0, 0, EINVAL},
echo $tmp >/proc/sys/kernel/shmmax

Or, alternatively: read /proc/sys/kernel/shmmax, and skip the test if 
the value is larger than ULONG_MAX-1.

--
	Manfred