linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] VMCI: Silence memcpy() run-time false positive warning

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: Mon, 1 Jan 2024 11:43:42 -0600
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To: Harshit Mogalapalli <harshit.m.mogalapalli@...cle.com>,
 linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, keescook@...omium.org,
 gustavoars@...nel.org, Bryan Tan <bryantan@...are.com>,
 Vishnu Dasa <vdasa@...are.com>,
 VMware PV-Drivers Reviewers <pv-drivers@...are.com>,
 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: vegard.nossum@...cle.com, darren.kenny@...cle.com,
 syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] VMCI: Silence memcpy() run-time false positive
 warning



On 1/1/24 07:08, Harshit Mogalapalli wrote:
> Syzkaller hit 'WARNING in dg_dispatch_as_host' bug.
> 
> memcpy: detected field-spanning write (size 56) of single field "&dg_info->msg"
> at drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_datagram.c:237 (size 24)

This is not a 'false postive warning.' This is a legitimately warning
coming from the fortified memcpy().

Under FORTIFY_SOURCE we should not copy data across multiple members
in a structure. For that we alternatives like struct_group(), or as
in this case, splitting memcpy(), or as I suggest below, a mix of
direct assignment and memcpy().


> 
> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1555 at drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_datagram.c:237
> dg_dispatch_as_host+0x88e/0xa60 drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_datagram.c:237
> 
> Some code commentry, based on my understanding:
> 
> 544 #define VMCI_DG_SIZE(_dg) (VMCI_DG_HEADERSIZE + (size_t)(_dg)->payload_size)
> /// This is 24 + payload_size
> 
> memcpy(&dg_info->msg, dg, dg_size);
> 	Destination = dg_info->msg ---> this is a 24 byte
> 					structure(struct vmci_datagram)
> 	Source = dg --> this is a 24 byte structure (struct vmci_datagram)
> 	Size = dg_size = 24 + payload_size
> 
> 
> {payload_size = 56-24 =32} -- Syzkaller managed to set payload_size to 32.
> 
>   35 struct delayed_datagram_info {
>   36         struct datagram_entry *entry;
>   37         struct work_struct work;
>   38         bool in_dg_host_queue;
>   39         /* msg and msg_payload must be together. */
>   40         struct vmci_datagram msg;
>   41         u8 msg_payload[];
>   42 };
> 
> So those extra bytes of payload are copied into msg_payload[], so there
> is no bug, but a run time warning is seen while fuzzing with Syzkaller.
> 
> One possible way to silence the warning is to split the memcpy() into
> two parts -- one -- copying the msg and second taking care of payload.
> 
> Reported-by: syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
> Suggested-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Harshit Mogalapalli <harshit.m.mogalapalli@...cle.com>
> ---
> This patch is only tested with the C reproducer, not any testing
> specific to driver is done.
> ---
>   drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_datagram.c | 4 +++-
>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_datagram.c b/drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_datagram.c
> index f50d22882476..b43661590f56 100644
> --- a/drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_datagram.c
> +++ b/drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_datagram.c
> @@ -216,6 +216,7 @@ static int dg_dispatch_as_host(u32 context_id, struct vmci_datagram *dg)
>   		if (dst_entry->run_delayed ||
>   		    dg->src.context == VMCI_HOST_CONTEXT_ID) {
>   			struct delayed_datagram_info *dg_info;
> +			size_t payload_size = dg_size - VMCI_DG_HEADERSIZE;

This seems to be the same as `dg->payload_size`, so I don't think a new
variable is necessary.

>   
>   			if (atomic_add_return(1, &delayed_dg_host_queue_size)
>   			    == VMCI_MAX_DELAYED_DG_HOST_QUEUE_SIZE) {
> @@ -234,7 +235,8 @@ static int dg_dispatch_as_host(u32 context_id, struct vmci_datagram *dg)
>   
>   			dg_info->in_dg_host_queue = true;
>   			dg_info->entry = dst_entry;
> -			memcpy(&dg_info->msg, dg, dg_size);
> +			memcpy(&dg_info->msg, dg, VMCI_DG_HEADERSIZE);
> +			memcpy(&dg_info->msg_payload, dg + 1, payload_size);

I think a direct assignment and a call to memcpy() is better in this case,
something like this:

dg_info->msg = *dg;
memcpy(&dg_info->msg_payload, dg + 1, dg->payload_size);

However, that `dg + 1` thing is making my eyes twitch. Where exactly are we
making sure that `dg` actually points to an area in memory bigger than
`sizeof(*dg)`?...

Also, we could also use struct_size() during allocation, some lines above:

-                       dg_info = kmalloc(sizeof(*dg_info) +
-                                   (size_t) dg->payload_size, GFP_ATOMIC);
+                       dg_info = kmalloc(struct_size(dg_info, msg_payload, dg->payload_size),
+                                         GFP_ATOMIC);

--
Gustavo

>   
>   			INIT_WORK(&dg_info->work, dg_delayed_dispatch);
>   			schedule_work(&dg_info->work);