linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/kexec: Fix potential out of bounds in crash_setup_memmap

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 21:14:35 +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>,
	Yuntao Wang <ytcoode@...il.com>, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/kexec: Fix potential out of bounds in
 crash_setup_memmap_entries()

On 12/20/23 at 01:57pm, fuqiang wang wrote:
> In memmap_exclude_ranges(), there will exclude elfheader from
> crashk_res. In the current x86 architecture code, the elfheader is
> always allocated at crashk_res.start. It seems that there won't be a
> split a new range. But it depends on the allocation position of
> elfheader in crashk_res. To avoid potential out of bounds in future, Set
> the array size to 2.

If so, I would suggest to add extra slot for low 1M too in
fill_up_crash_elf_data() lest the low 1M could be changed in the future,
e.g [start, 1M].

> 
> But similar issue will not exist in fill_up_crash_elf_data(). Because
> the range to be excluded is [0, 1M], start (0) is special and will not
> appear in the middle of existing cmem->ranges[]. I added a comment to
> explain it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: fuqiang wang <fuqiang.wang@...ystack.cn>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/crash.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/crash.c b/arch/x86/kernel/crash.c
> index c92d88680dbf..1c15d0884c90 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/crash.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/crash.c
> @@ -149,6 +149,13 @@ static struct crash_mem *fill_up_crash_elf_data(void)
>  	/*
>  	 * Exclusion of crash region and/or crashk_low_res may cause
>  	 * another range split. So add extra two slots here.
> +	 *
> +	 * Exclusion of low 1M may not cause another range split, because the
> +	 * range of exclude is [0, 1M] and the condition for splitting a new
> +	 * region is that the start, end parameters are both in a certain
> +	 * existing region in cmem and cannot be equal to existing region's
> +	 * start or end. Obviously, the start of [0, 1M] cannot meet this
> +	 * condition.
>  	 */
>  	nr_ranges += 2;
>  	cmem = vzalloc(struct_size(cmem, ranges, nr_ranges));
> @@ -282,9 +289,15 @@ int crash_setup_memmap_entries(struct kimage *image, struct boot_params *params)
>  	struct crash_memmap_data cmd;
>  	struct crash_mem *cmem;
>  
> -	cmem = vzalloc(struct_size(cmem, ranges, 1));
> +	cmem = vzalloc(struct_size(cmem, ranges, 2));
>  	if (!cmem)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
> +	cmem->max_nr_ranges = 2;
> +
> +	/* Exclude some ranges from crashk_res and add rest to memmap */
> +	ret = memmap_exclude_ranges(image, cmem, crashk_res.start, crashk_res.end);
> +	if (ret)
> +		goto out;
>  
>  	memset(&cmd, 0, sizeof(struct crash_memmap_data));
>  	cmd.params = params;
> @@ -320,11 +333,6 @@ int crash_setup_memmap_entries(struct kimage *image, struct boot_params *params)
>  		add_e820_entry(params, &ei);
>  	}
>  
> -	/* Exclude some ranges from crashk_res and add rest to memmap */
> -	ret = memmap_exclude_ranges(image, cmem, crashk_res.start, crashk_res.end);
> -	if (ret)
> -		goto out;

And you didn't mention moving above code block up in log. I would
suggest keeping it as is because it looks more reasonable to be adjacent
to the following cmem->ranges[] handling.

> -
>  	for (i = 0; i < cmem->nr_ranges; i++) {
>  		ei.size = cmem->ranges[i].end - cmem->ranges[i].start + 1;
>  
> -- 
> 2.42.0
>