Message-ID: <2631e8a6-03f2-69ea-d889-afd9a345e7ef@virtuozzo.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Sep 2017 16:09:46 +0300
From:   Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-media@...r.kernel.org" <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@...adcom.com" 
        <brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@...adcom.com>,
        "brcm80211-dev-list@...ress.com" <brcm80211-dev-list@...ress.com>,
        "kasan-dev@...glegroups.com" <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        "linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jakub Jelinek <jakub@....gnu.org>,
        Martin Liška <marxin@....gnu.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/9] em28xx: fix em28xx_dvb_init for KASAN

On 09/27/2017 04:26 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Andrey Ryabinin
> <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09/26/2017 09:47 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> 
>>> +       ret = __builtin_strlen(q);
>>
>>
>> I think this is not correct. Fortified strlen called here on purpose. If sizeof q is known at compile time
>> and 'q' contains not-null fortified strlen() will panic.
> 
> Ok, got it.
> 
>>>         if (size) {
>>>                 size_t len = (ret >= size) ? size - 1 : ret;
>>>                 if (__builtin_constant_p(len) && len >= p_size)
>>>
>>> The problem is apparently that the fortified strlcpy calls the fortified strlen,
>>> which in turn calls strnlen and that ends up calling the extern '__real_strnlen'
>>> that gcc cannot reduce to a constant expression for a constant input.
>>
>>
>> Per my observation, it's the code like this:
>>         if ()
>>                 fortify_panic(__func__);
>>
>>
>> somehow prevent gcc to merge several "struct i2c_board_info info;" into one stack slot.
>> With the hack bellow, stack usage reduced to ~1,6K:
> 
> 1.6k is also what I see with my patch, or any other approach I tried
> that changes
> string.h. With the split up em28xx_dvb_init() function (and without
> changes to string.h),
> I got down to a few hundred bytes for the largest handler.
> 
>> ---
>>  include/linux/string.h | 4 ----
>>  1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/string.h b/include/linux/string.h
>> index 54d21783e18d..9a96ff3ebf94 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/string.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/string.h
>> @@ -261,8 +261,6 @@ __FORTIFY_INLINE __kernel_size_t strlen(const char *p)
>>         if (p_size == (size_t)-1)
>>                 return __builtin_strlen(p);
>>         ret = strnlen(p, p_size);
>> -       if (p_size <= ret)
>> -               fortify_panic(__func__);
>>         return ret;
>>  }
>>
>> @@ -271,8 +269,6 @@ __FORTIFY_INLINE __kernel_size_t strnlen(const char *p, __kernel_size_t maxlen)
>>  {
>>         size_t p_size = __builtin_object_size(p, 0);
>>         __kernel_size_t ret = __real_strnlen(p, maxlen < p_size ? maxlen : p_size);
>> -       if (p_size <= ret && maxlen != ret)
>> -               fortify_panic(__func__);
>>         return ret;
> 
> I've reduced it further to this change:
> 
> --- a/include/linux/string.h
> +++ b/include/linux/string.h
> @@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ static inline const char *kbasename(const char *path)
>  #define __FORTIFY_INLINE extern __always_inline __attribute__((gnu_inline))
>  #define __RENAME(x) __asm__(#x)
> 
> -void fortify_panic(const char *name) __noreturn __cold;
> +void fortify_panic(const char *name) __cold;
>  void __read_overflow(void) __compiletime_error("detected read beyond
> size of object passed as 1st parameter");
>  void __read_overflow2(void) __compiletime_error("detected read beyond
> size of object passed as 2nd parameter");
>  void __read_overflow3(void) __compiletime_error("detected read beyond
> size of object passed as 3rd parameter");
> 
> I don't immediately see why the __noreturn changes the behavior here, any idea?
> 


At first I thought that this somehow might be related to __asan_handle_no_return(). GCC calls it
before noreturn function. So I made patch to remove generation of these calls (we don't need them in the kernel anyway)
but it didn't help. It must be something else than.


>>> Not sure if that change is the best fix, but it seems to address the problem in
>>> this driver and probably leads to better code in other places as well.
>>>
>>
>> Probably it would be better to solve this on the strlcpy side, but I haven't found the way to do this right.
>> Alternative solutions:
>>
>>  - use memcpy() instead of strlcpy(). All source strings are smaller than I2C_NAME_SIZE, so we could
>>    do something like this - memcpy(info.type, "si2168", sizeof("si2168"));
>>    Also this should be faster.
> 
> This would be very similar to the patch I posted at the start of this
> thread to use strncpy(), right?

Sure.

> I was hoping that changing strlcpy() here could also improve other
> users that might run into
> the same situation, but stay below the 2048-byte stack frame limit.
> 
>>  - Move code under different "case:" in the switch(dev->model) to the separate function should help as well.
>>    But it might be harder to backport into stables.
> 
> Agreed, I posted this in earlier versions of the patch series, see
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9601025/
> 
> The new patch was a result of me trying to come up with a less
> invasive version to
> make it easier to backport, since I would like to backport the last
> patch in the series
> that depends on all the earlier ones.
> 
>          Arnd
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists