linux-kernel - Re: [REGRESSION][BISECTED] erroneous buffer overflow detected in bch2_xattr

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: <Zv65p8f4sxT4gKYs@archlinux>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 17:35:03 +0200
From: Jan Hendrik Farr <kernel@...rr.cc>
To: Thorsten Blum <thorsten.blum@...lux.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, kent.overstreet@...ux.dev,
	regressions@...ts.linux.dev, linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	ardb@...nel.org, morbo@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION][BISECTED] erroneous buffer overflow detected in
 bch2_xattr_validate

On 03 17:30:28, Thorsten Blum wrote:
> On 3. Oct 2024, at 17:22, Jan Hendrik Farr <kernel@...rr.cc> wrote:
> > On 03 17:02:07, Thorsten Blum wrote:
> >> On 3. Oct 2024, at 15:12, Jan Hendrik Farr <kernel@...rr.cc> wrote:
> >>> On 03 15:07:52, Thorsten Blum wrote:
> >>>> On 3. Oct 2024, at 13:33, Jan Hendrik Farr <kernel@...rr.cc> wrote:
> >>>>>> [...]
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> This issue is now fixed on the llvm main branch:
> >>>>> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/882457a2eedbe6d53161b2f78fcf769fc9a93e8a
> >>>> 
> >>>> Thanks!
> >>>> 
> >>>> Do you know if it also fixes the different sizes here:
> >>>> https://godbolt.org/z/vvK9PE1Yq

Do you already have an open issue on the llvm github? Otherwise I'll
open one and submit the PR shortly.

> >>> 
> >>> Unfortunately this still prints 36.
> >> 
> >> I just realized that the counted_by attribute itself causes the 4 bytes
> >> difference. When you remove the attribute, the sizes are equal again.
> > 
> > But we want these attributes to be in the kernel, so that
> > bounds-checking can be done in more scenarios, right?
> 
> Yes
> 
> > This changes clang to print 40, right? gcc prints 40 in the example
> > whether the attribute is there or not.
> 
> Yes, clang prints 36 with and 40 without the attribute; gcc always 40.
> 
> >>>> I ran out of disk space when compiling llvm :0
> >>>> 
> >>>>> So presumably this will go into 19.1.2, not sure what this means for
> >>>>> distros that ship clang 18. Will they have to be notified to backport
> >>>>> this?
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Best Regards
> >>>>> Jan