[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b6c1c3ce-3ba0-4439-b0fb-2bb0c38586e0@embeddedor.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 09:51:36 -0600
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@....com>,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] Boot crash on v6.7-rc2
On 11/24/23 09:28, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
>
> On 11/24/23 04:24, Joey Gouly wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I just hit a boot crash on v6.7-rc2 (arm64, FVP model):
>
> [..]
>
>> Checking `struct neighbour`:
>>
>> struct neighbour {
>> struct neighbour __rcu *next;
>> struct neigh_table *tbl;
>> .. fields ..
>> u8 primary_key[0];
>> } __randomize_layout;
>>
>> Due to the `__randomize_layout`, `primary_key` field is being placed before `tbl` (actually it's the same address since it's a 0 length array). That means the
>> memcpy() corrupts the tbl pointer.
>>
>> I think I just got unlucky with my CONFIG_RANDSTRUCT seed (I can provide it if needed), it doesn't look as if it's a new issue.
>
> It seems the issue is caused by this change that was recently added to -rc2:
>
> commit 1ee60356c2dc ("gcc-plugins: randstruct: Only warn about true flexible arrays")
>
> Previously, one-element and zero-length arrays were treated as true flexible arrays
> (however, they are "fake" flex arrays), and __randomize_layout would leave them
> untouched at the end of the struct; the same for proper C99 flex-array members. But
> after the commit above, that's no longer the case: Only C99 flex-array members will
> behave correctly (remaining untouched at end of the struct), and the other two types
> of arrays will be randomized.
Kees,
I think we should complement the changes in commit 1ee60356c2dc with the following
update:
diff --git a/scripts/gcc-plugins/randomize_layout_plugin.c b/scripts/gcc-plugins/randomize_layout_plugin.c
index 910bd21d08f4..746ff2d272f2 100644
--- a/scripts/gcc-plugins/randomize_layout_plugin.c
+++ b/scripts/gcc-plugins/randomize_layout_plugin.c
@@ -339,8 +339,7 @@ static int relayout_struct(tree type)
/*
* enforce that we don't randomize the layout of the last
- * element of a struct if it's a 0 or 1-length array
- * or a proper flexible array
+ * element of a struct if it's a proper flexible array
*/
if (is_flexible_array(newtree[num_fields - 1])) {
has_flexarray = true;
--
Gustavo
>
>>
>> I couldn't reproduce directly on v6.6 (the offsets for `tbl` and `primary_key` didn't overlap).
>> However I tried changing the zero-length-array to a flexible one:
>>
>> + DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY(u8, primary_key);
>> + u8 primary_key[0];
>>
>> Then the field offsets ended up overlapping, and I also got the same crash on v6.6.
>
> The right approach is to transform the zero-length array into a C99 flex-array member,
> like this:
>
> diff --git a/include/net/neighbour.h b/include/net/neighbour.h
> index 07022bb0d44d..0d28172193fa 100644
> --- a/include/net/neighbour.h
> +++ b/include/net/neighbour.h
> @@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ struct neighbour {
> struct rcu_head rcu;
> struct net_device *dev;
> netdevice_tracker dev_tracker;
> - u8 primary_key[0];
> + u8 primary_key[];
> } __randomize_layout;
>
> struct neigh_ops {
>
> --
> Gustavo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists