netdev - RE: [v5.1] ucc_fast: Fix to avoid IS_ERR_VALUE abuses and dead code on 64bit systems.

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D5F50B336@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Date:	Fri, 5 Aug 2016 13:04:25 +0000
From:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:	'Arvind Yadav' <arvind.yadav.cs@...il.com>,
	"zajec5@...il.com" <zajec5@...il.com>,
	"leoli@...escale.com" <leoli@...escale.com>
CC:	"qiang.zhao@...escale.com" <qiang.zhao@...escale.com>,
	"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
	"viresh.kumar@...aro.org" <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"scottwood@...escale.com" <scottwood@...escale.com>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	"linux@...ck-us.net" <linux@...ck-us.net>
Subject: RE: [v5.1] ucc_fast: Fix to avoid IS_ERR_VALUE abuses and dead code
 on 64bit systems.

From: Arvind Yadav
> Sent: 04 August 2016 17:53
> IS_ERR_VALUE() assumes that parameter is an unsigned long.
> It can not be used to check if 'unsigned int' is passed insted.
> Which tends to reflect an error.
> In 64bit architectures sizeof (int) == 4 && sizeof (long) == 8.
> IS_ERR_VALUE(x) is ((x) >= (unsigned long)-4095).
> IS_ERR_VALUE() of 'unsigned int' is always false because the 32bit
> value is zero extended to 64 bits.
> 
> Now Problem In UCC fast protocols -: drivers/soc/fsl/qe/ucc_fast.c
> 
>         /* Allocate memory for Tx Virtual Fifo */
>         uccf->ucc_fast_tx_virtual_fifo_base_offset =
>           qe_muram_alloc(uf_info->utfs, UCC_FAST_VIRT_FIFO_REGS_ALIGNMENT);
>         if (IS_ERR_VALUE(uccf->ucc_fast_tx_virtual_fifo_base_offset)) {
>                 printk(KERN_ERR "%s: cannot allocate MURAM for TX FIFO\n",
>                         __func__);
>                 uccf->ucc_fast_tx_virtual_fifo_base_offset = 0;
>                 ucc_fast_free(uccf);
>                 return -ENOMEM;
>         }
> 
>         /* Allocate memory for Rx Virtual Fifo */
>         uccf->ucc_fast_rx_virtual_fifo_base_offset =
>            qe_muram_alloc(uf_info->urfs +
>                            UCC_FAST_RECEIVE_VIRTUAL_FIFO_SIZE_FUDGE_FACTOR,
>                            UCC_FAST_VIRT_FIFO_REGS_ALIGNMENT);
>         if (IS_ERR_VALUE(uccf->ucc_fast_rx_virtual_fifo_base_offset)) {
>                 printk(KERN_ERR "%s: cannot allocate MURAM for RX FIFO\n",
>                         __func__);
>                 uccf->ucc_fast_rx_virtual_fifo_base_offset = 0;
>                 ucc_fast_free(uccf);
>                 return -ENOMEM;
>         }
> 
> qe_muram_alloc (a.k.a. cpm_muram_alloc) returns unsigned long.
> Return value store in a u32 (ucc_fast_tx_virtual_fifo_base_offset
> and ucc_fast_rx_virtual_fifo_base_offset).If qe_muram_alloc will
> return any error, Then IS_ERR_VALUE will always return 0. it'll not
> call ucc_fast_free for any failure. Inside 'if code' will be a dead
> code on 64bit.
> This patch is to avoid this problem on 64bit machine.

That is really far too wordy for a commit message.

My suspicion is that qe_muram_alloc() always returns a value that is much
less than 2^32 - even though the return type is 'long'.

Looking further all this code is a bag of worms.

The 'fail' return value from qe_muram_alloc() (aka cpm_muram_alloc()) is
never returned to an outer level.
It might be better to return a constant CPM_MURAL_ALLOC_FAIL (say 0x7fffffff)
and have the callers check that (via a #define).

That is only the start of the problems...

It looks very likely that cpm_muram_free() will be called in tidy up paths
when cpm_muram_alloc() either failed, or hasn't been called.
Since 0 is a valid return value, and there is no check for -ENOMEM it is
all an 'accident waiting to happen'.

>From my quick scan (grep -B2 -A6) I'm not at all sure most of the error paths
at best leak memory.

	David