linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v2] perf/ring_buffer: Prefer struct

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: Mon, 6 May 2024 20:23:43 +0200
From: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Erick Archer <erick.archer@...look.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
 Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
 Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
 Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
 Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
 "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
 "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
 Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
 Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, Bill Wendling
 <morbo@...gle.com>, Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>,
 linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf/ring_buffer: Prefer struct_size over open coded
 arithmetic

Le 06/05/2024 à 18:23, Kees Cook a écrit :
> On Sun, May 05, 2024 at 07:31:24PM +0200, Erick Archer wrote:
>> On Sun, May 05, 2024 at 05:24:55PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>>> Le 05/05/2024 à 16:15, Erick Archer a écrit :
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c b/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c
>>>> index 4013408ce012..080537eff69f 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c
>>>> @@ -822,9 +822,7 @@ struct perf_buffer *rb_alloc(int nr_pages, long watermark, int cpu, int flags)
>>>>    	unsigned long size;
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Should size be size_t?
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I don't have enough knowledge to answer this question.
>> The "size" variable is used as a return value by struct_size and as
>> a parameter to the order_base_2() and kzalloc_node() functions.
> 
> For Linux, size_t and unsigned long are the same (currently).
> Pedantically, yes, this should be size_t, but it's the same.
> 
>> [...]
>>> 	all_buf = vmalloc_user((nr_pages + 1) * PAGE_SIZE);
>>> 	if (!all_buf)
>>> 		goto fail_all_buf;
>>>
>>> 	rb->user_page = all_buf;
>>> 	rb->data_pages[0] = all_buf + PAGE_SIZE;
>>> 	if (nr_pages) {					<--- here
>>> 		rb->nr_pages = 1;			<---
>>> 		rb->page_order = ilog2(nr_pages);
>>> 	}
>> [...]
>> I think that we don't need to deal with the "nr_pages = 0" case
>> since the flex array will always have a length of one.
>>
>> Kees, can you help us with this?
> 
> Agh, this code hurt my head for a while.
> 
> all_buf contains "nr_pages + 1" pages. all_buf gets attached to
> rb->user_page, and then rb->data_pages[0] points to the second page in
> all_buf... which means, I guess, that rb->data_pages does only have 1
> entry.
> 
> However, the nr_pages == 0 case is weird. Currently, data_pages[0] will
> still get set (which points ... off the end of all_buf). If we
> unconditionally set rb->nr_pages to 1, we're changing the behavior. If
> we _don't_ set rb->data_pages[0], we're changing the behavior, but I
> think it's an invalid pointer anyway, so this is the safer change to
> make. I suspect the right replacement is:
> 
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c b/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c
> index 4013408ce012..7d638ce76799 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c
> @@ -916,15 +916,11 @@ void rb_free(struct perf_buffer *rb)
>   struct perf_buffer *rb_alloc(int nr_pages, long watermark, int cpu, int flags)
>   {
>   	struct perf_buffer *rb;
> -	unsigned long size;
>   	void *all_buf;
>   	int node;
>   
> -	size = sizeof(struct perf_buffer);
> -	size += sizeof(void *);
> -
>   	node = (cpu == -1) ? cpu : cpu_to_node(cpu);
> -	rb = kzalloc_node(size, GFP_KERNEL, node);
> +	rb = kzalloc_node(struct_size(rb, nr_pages, 1), GFP_KERNEL, node);
>   	if (!rb)
>   		goto fail;
>   
> @@ -935,9 +931,9 @@ struct perf_buffer *rb_alloc(int nr_pages, long watermark, int cpu, int flags)
>   		goto fail_all_buf;
>   
>   	rb->user_page = all_buf;
> -	rb->data_pages[0] = all_buf + PAGE_SIZE;
>   	if (nr_pages) {
>   		rb->nr_pages = 1;
> +		rb->data_pages[0] = all_buf + PAGE_SIZE;
>   		rb->page_order = ilog2(nr_pages);
>   	}

This is also what make the most sense to me.

CJ

>   
> 
> 
> Also, why does rb_alloc() take an "int" nr_pages? The only caller has an
> unsigned long argument for nr_pages. Nothing checks for >INT_MAX that I
> can find.
>