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]
Date:   Thu, 30 Nov 2023 15:44:41 +0800
From:   Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
To:     fuqiang wang <fuqiang.wang@...ystack.cn>
Cc:     Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kexec: avoid out of bounds in crash_exclude_mem_range()

On 11/27/23 at 10:56am, fuqiang wang wrote:
> When the split happened, judge whether mem->nr_ranges is equal to
> mem->max_nr_ranges. If it is true, return -ENOMEM.
> 
> The advantage of doing this is that it can avoid array bounds caused by
> some bugs. E.g., Before commit 4831be702b95 ("arm64/kexec: Fix missing
> extra range for crashkres_low."), reserve both high and low memories for
> the crashkernel may cause out of bounds.
> 
> On the other hand, move this code before the split to ensure that the
> array will not be changed when return error.

If out of array boundary is caused, means the laoding failed, whether
the out of boundary happened or not. I don't see how this code change
makes sense. Do I miss anything?

Thanks
Baoquan

> 
> Signed-off-by: fuqiang wang <fuqiang.wang@...ystack.cn>
> ---
>  kernel/crash_core.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/crash_core.c b/kernel/crash_core.c
> index efe87d501c8c..ffdc246cf425 100644
> --- a/kernel/crash_core.c
> +++ b/kernel/crash_core.c
> @@ -611,6 +611,9 @@ int crash_exclude_mem_range(struct crash_mem *mem,
>  		}
>  
>  		if (p_start > start && p_end < end) {
> +			/* Split happened */
> +			if (mem->nr_ranges == mem->max_nr_ranges)
> +				return -ENOMEM;
>  			/* Split original range */
>  			mem->ranges[i].end = p_start - 1;
>  			temp_range.start = p_end + 1;
> @@ -626,9 +629,6 @@ int crash_exclude_mem_range(struct crash_mem *mem,
>  	if (!temp_range.end)
>  		return 0;
>  
> -	/* Split happened */
> -	if (i == mem->max_nr_ranges - 1)
> -		return -ENOMEM;
>  
>  	/* Location where new range should go */
>  	j = i + 1;
> -- 
> 2.42.0
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> kexec mailing list
> kexec@...ts.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ