[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230810160907.GA5951@willie-the-truck>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 17:09:07 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
John Hsu (許永翰) <John.Hsu@...iatek.com>,
"catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
Xiaobing Shi (史小兵)
<Xiaobing.Shi@...iatek.com>,
Chunhui Li (李春辉)
<chunhui.li@...iatek.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Kuan-Ying Lee (李冠穎)
<Kuan-Ying.Lee@...iatek.com>,
Casper Li (李中榮) <casper.li@...iatek.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG kernel-5.15] aarch64: __pi_strncmp() out-of-bound error
On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 04:00:00PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 10/08/2023 3:31 pm, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 01:23:28PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > > I'm not sure there's strictly a bug here. The C standard says:
> > >
> > > "The strncmp function compares not more than n characters (characters that
> > > follow a null character are not compared) ..."
> > >
> > > so although any characters between the first NULL and n must not be
> > > considered for the result of the comparison, there doesn't seem to be any
> > > explicit promise anywhere that they can't be *accessed*. AFAICT what happens
> > > here is in the request to compare at most 23 characters, it ends up in the
> > > do_misaligned case, loop_misaligned runs twice and finds no differences or
> > > NULLs in characters 0-7 and 8-15, so then done_loop loads characters 15-23
> > > to compare the last 7, and is tripped up by 22-23 not actually existing in
> > > src2. Possibly the original intent was that this case should have ended up
> > > in page_end_loop, and the condition for that was slightly off, but I'm not
> > > sure, and this code is obsolete now anyway.
> >
> > The long backtrace above worries me, as it suggests that you can trigger
> > this from userspace. In that case I think it's a bug regardless of what
> > the C standard says.
>
> Bleh, poor choice of words... obviously there is a bug overall, it just
> might arguably be in the caller's expectations rather than the strncmp()
> implementation itself. However I would concur that there's no way we're
> going over all ~3000 strncmp() callsites with the "well, actually" comb just
> for this. It was more to say I don't think it's worth digging much deeper
> into exactly why, and I agree the pragmatic thing to do is either rip it out
> or backport the newer MTE-safe implementation which should be more robust.
Heh, then we agree. I was worried you'd gone mad :)
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists