linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 22/26] rust: alloc: implement `Cmalloc` in module allocator

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]

Message-ID: <ZuGrQcLwXi-tiK8l@cassiopeiae>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 16:37:53 +0200
From: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
To: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
Cc: ojeda@...nel.org, alex.gaynor@...il.com, wedsonaf@...il.com,
	boqun.feng@...il.com, gary@...yguo.net, bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com,
	a.hindborg@...sung.com, aliceryhl@...gle.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, daniel.almeida@...labora.com,
	faith.ekstrand@...labora.com, boris.brezillon@...labora.com,
	lina@...hilina.net, mcanal@...lia.com, zhiw@...dia.com,
	cjia@...dia.com, jhubbard@...dia.com, airlied@...hat.com,
	ajanulgu@...hat.com, lyude@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 22/26] rust: alloc: implement `Cmalloc` in module
 allocator_test

On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 01:32:31PM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
> On 11.09.24 14:31, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 12:25:27AM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 07:14:18PM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
> >>> On 16.08.24 02:11, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> >>>> +
> >>>> +        if layout.size() == 0 {
> >>>> +            // SAFETY: `src` has been created by `Self::alloc_store_data`.
> >>>
> >>> This is not true, consider:
> >>>
> >>>     let ptr = alloc(size = 0);
> >>>     free(ptr)
> >>>
> >>> Alloc will return a dangling pointer due to the first if statement and
> >>> then this function will pass it to `free_read_data`, even though it
> >>> wasn't created by `alloc_store_data`.
> >>> This isn't forbidden by the `Allocator` trait function's safety
> >>> requirements.
> >>>
> >>>> +            unsafe { Self::free_read_data(src) };
> >>>> +
> >>>> +            return Ok(NonNull::slice_from_raw_parts(NonNull::dangling(), 0));
> >>>> +        }
> >>>> +
> >>>> +        let dst = Self::alloc(layout, flags)?;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +        // SAFETY: `src` has been created by `Self::alloc_store_data`.
> >>>> +        let data = unsafe { Self::data(src) };
> >>>
> >>> Same issue here, if the allocation passed in is zero size. I think you
> >>> have no other choice than to allocate even for zero size requests...
> >>> Otherwise how would you know that they are zero-sized.
> >>
> >> Good catch - gonna fix it.
> > 
> > Almost got me. :) I think the code is fine, callers are not allowed to pass
> > pointers to `realloc` and `free`, which haven't been allocated with the same
> > corresponding allocator or are dangling.
> 
> But what about the example above (ie the `alloc(size = 0)` and then
> `free`)?

This never has been valid for the `Allocator` trait. Look at `Kmalloc`,
`Vmalloc` and `KVmalloc`, they don't allow this either.

We've discussed this already in previous versions of this series, where for this
purpose, you asked for `old_layout` for `free`. Such that `free` can check if
the `size` was zero and therefore return without doing anything.

> I guess this all depends on how one interprets the term
> "existing, valid memory allocation". To me that describes anything an
> `Allocator` returns via `alloc` and `realloc`, including zero-sized
> allocations.

I argue that the dangling pointer returned for `size == 0` does not point to any
allocation in the sense of those allocators. It's just a dangling `[u8]`
pointer.

> But if you argue that those are not valid allocations from that
> allocator, then that is not properly documented in the safety
> requirements of `Allocator`. 

The safety requirements of `Allocator` where proposed by you and I thought they
consider this aspect?

`realloc` has:

"If `ptr == Some(p)`, then `p` must point to an existing and valid memory
allocation created by this allocator."

`free` has:

"`ptr` must point to an existing and valid memory allocation created by this
`Allocator` and must not be a dangling pointer."

We can add the part about the dangling pointer to `realloc` if you want.

> 
> ---
> Cheers,
> Benno
>