netdev - Re: [PATCH] libbpf hashmap: Fix undefined behavior in hash

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:   Thu, 29 Oct 2020 17:45:14 +0000
From:   Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
To:     Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
CC:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Martin Lau <kafai@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libbpf hashmap: Fix undefined behavior in hash_bits



> On Oct 29, 2020, at 9:09 AM, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com> wrote:
> 
> If bits is 0, the case when the map is empty, then the >> is the size of
> the register which is undefined behavior - on x86 it is the same as a
> shift by 0. Fix by handling the 0 case explicitly when running with
> address sanitizer.
> 
> A variant of this patch was posted previously as:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200508063954.256593-1-irogers@google.com/
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
> ---
> tools/lib/bpf/hashmap.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/hashmap.h b/tools/lib/bpf/hashmap.h
> index d9b385fe808c..27d0556527d3 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/hashmap.h
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/hashmap.h
> @@ -12,9 +12,23 @@
> #include <stddef.h>
> #include <limits.h>
> 
> +#ifdef __has_feature
> +#define HAVE_FEATURE(f) __has_feature(f)
> +#else
> +#define HAVE_FEATURE(f) 0
> +#endif
> +
> static inline size_t hash_bits(size_t h, int bits)
> {
> 	/* shuffle bits and return requested number of upper bits */
> +#if defined(ADDRESS_SANITIZER) || HAVE_FEATURE(address_sanitizer)

I am not very familiar with these features. Is address sanitizer same
as undefined behavior sanitizer (mentioned in previous version)?

> +	/*
> +	 * If the requested bits == 0 avoid undefined behavior from a
> +	 * greater-than bit width shift right (aka invalid-shift-exponent).
> +	 */
> +	if (bits == 0)
> +		return -1;

Shall we return 0 or -1 (0xffffffff) here? 

Also, we have HASHMAP_MIN_CAP_BITS == 2. Shall we just make sure we
never feed bits == 0 into hash_bits()?

Thanks,
Song


> +#endif
> #if (__SIZEOF_SIZE_T__ == __SIZEOF_LONG_LONG__)
> 	/* LP64 case */
> 	return (h * 11400714819323198485llu) >> (__SIZEOF_LONG_LONG__ * 8 - bits);
> -- 
> 2.29.1.341.ge80a0c044ae-goog
>