All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH] tracing: Fix an off by one in __next()
@ 2018-06-20 11:08 ` Dan Carpenter
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2018-06-20 11:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Steven Rostedt; +Cc: Ingo Molnar, linux-kernel, kernel-janitors

The > should be >= to prevent an off by one bug.

From reviewing the code, it seems possible for
stack_trace_max.nr_entries to be set to .max_entries and in that case we
would be reading one element beyond the end of the stack_dump_trace[]
array.  If it's not set to .max_entries then the bug doesn't affect
runtime.

Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>

diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c b/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c
index 4237eba4ef20..6e3edd745c68 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c
@@ -286,7 +286,7 @@ __next(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *pos)
 {
 	long n = *pos - 1;
 
-	if (n > stack_trace_max.nr_entries || stack_dump_trace[n] == ULONG_MAX)
+	if (n >= stack_trace_max.nr_entries || stack_dump_trace[n] == ULONG_MAX)
 		return NULL;
 
 	m->private = (void *)n;

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* [PATCH] tracing: Fix an off by one in __next()
@ 2018-06-20 11:08 ` Dan Carpenter
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2018-06-20 11:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Steven Rostedt; +Cc: Ingo Molnar, linux-kernel, kernel-janitors

The > should be >= to prevent an off by one bug.

From reviewing the code, it seems possible for
stack_trace_max.nr_entries to be set to .max_entries and in that case we
would be reading one element beyond the end of the stack_dump_trace[]
array.  If it's not set to .max_entries then the bug doesn't affect
runtime.

Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>

diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c b/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c
index 4237eba4ef20..6e3edd745c68 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c
@@ -286,7 +286,7 @@ __next(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *pos)
 {
 	long n = *pos - 1;
 
-	if (n > stack_trace_max.nr_entries || stack_dump_trace[n] = ULONG_MAX)
+	if (n >= stack_trace_max.nr_entries || stack_dump_trace[n] = ULONG_MAX)
 		return NULL;
 
 	m->private = (void *)n;

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] tracing: Fix an off by one in __next()
  2018-06-20 11:08 ` Dan Carpenter
@ 2018-11-27 18:44   ` Steven Rostedt
  -1 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Steven Rostedt @ 2018-11-27 18:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dan Carpenter; +Cc: Ingo Molnar, linux-kernel, kernel-janitors


Doing the sweep of my INBOX, I came across this patch (it was sent
while I was in the Alps :-)


On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:08:00 +0300
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> wrote:

> The > should be >= to prevent an off by one bug.

Well, not really.

> 
> >From reviewing the code, it seems possible for  
> stack_trace_max.nr_entries to be set to .max_entries and in that case we
> would be reading one element beyond the end of the stack_dump_trace[]
> array.  If it's not set to .max_entries then the bug doesn't affect
> runtime.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c b/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c
> index 4237eba4ef20..6e3edd745c68 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c
> @@ -286,7 +286,7 @@ __next(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *pos)
>  {
>  	long n = *pos - 1;
>  
> -	if (n > stack_trace_max.nr_entries || stack_dump_trace[n] == ULONG_MAX)
> +	if (n >= stack_trace_max.nr_entries || stack_dump_trace[n] == ULONG_MAX)

We have:

static unsigned long stack_dump_trace[STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES+1] =
	 { [0 ... (STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES)] = ULONG_MAX };

 And

struct stack_trace stack_trace_max = {
	.max_entries		= STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES - 1,
	.entries		= &stack_dump_trace[0],
};


And nr_entries is set as this, and we have after that this:

	stack_trace_max.nr_entries = x;
	for (; x < i; x++)
		stack_dump_trace[x] = ULONG_MAX;

Where we set stack_dump_trace[nr_entries] to ULONG_MAX.

Thus, nr_entries will not go pass the size of stack_dump_trace.

That said, if n == nr_entries, the second part of that if will always
be true. And this is a bit subtle, so I will apply the patch. But it is
not an off by one bug ;-)

Thanks!

-- Steve


>  		return NULL;
>  
>  	m->private = (void *)n;


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] tracing: Fix an off by one in __next()
@ 2018-11-27 18:44   ` Steven Rostedt
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Steven Rostedt @ 2018-11-27 18:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dan Carpenter; +Cc: Ingo Molnar, linux-kernel, kernel-janitors


Doing the sweep of my INBOX, I came across this patch (it was sent
while I was in the Alps :-)


On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:08:00 +0300
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> wrote:

> The > should be >= to prevent an off by one bug.

Well, not really.

> 
> >From reviewing the code, it seems possible for  
> stack_trace_max.nr_entries to be set to .max_entries and in that case we
> would be reading one element beyond the end of the stack_dump_trace[]
> array.  If it's not set to .max_entries then the bug doesn't affect
> runtime.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c b/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c
> index 4237eba4ef20..6e3edd745c68 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c
> @@ -286,7 +286,7 @@ __next(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *pos)
>  {
>  	long n = *pos - 1;
>  
> -	if (n > stack_trace_max.nr_entries || stack_dump_trace[n] = ULONG_MAX)
> +	if (n >= stack_trace_max.nr_entries || stack_dump_trace[n] = ULONG_MAX)

We have:

static unsigned long stack_dump_trace[STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES+1] 	 { [0 ... (STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES)] = ULONG_MAX };

 And

struct stack_trace stack_trace_max = {
	.max_entries		= STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES - 1,
	.entries		= &stack_dump_trace[0],
};


And nr_entries is set as this, and we have after that this:

	stack_trace_max.nr_entries = x;
	for (; x < i; x++)
		stack_dump_trace[x] = ULONG_MAX;

Where we set stack_dump_trace[nr_entries] to ULONG_MAX.

Thus, nr_entries will not go pass the size of stack_dump_trace.

That said, if n = nr_entries, the second part of that if will always
be true. And this is a bit subtle, so I will apply the patch. But it is
not an off by one bug ;-)

Thanks!

-- Steve


>  		return NULL;
>  
>  	m->private = (void *)n;

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] tracing: Fix an off by one in __next()
  2018-11-27 18:44   ` Steven Rostedt
@ 2018-11-27 20:04     ` Dan Carpenter
  -1 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2018-11-27 20:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Steven Rostedt; +Cc: Ingo Molnar, linux-kernel, kernel-janitors

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 01:44:12PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> Doing the sweep of my INBOX, I came across this patch (it was sent
> while I was in the Alps :-)
> 
> 
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:08:00 +0300
> Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> > The > should be >= to prevent an off by one bug.
> 
> Well, not really.
> 
> > 
> > >From reviewing the code, it seems possible for  
> > stack_trace_max.nr_entries to be set to .max_entries and in that case we
> > would be reading one element beyond the end of the stack_dump_trace[]
> > array.  If it's not set to .max_entries then the bug doesn't affect
> > runtime.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c b/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c
> > index 4237eba4ef20..6e3edd745c68 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c
> > @@ -286,7 +286,7 @@ __next(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *pos)
> >  {
> >  	long n = *pos - 1;
> >  
> > -	if (n > stack_trace_max.nr_entries || stack_dump_trace[n] == ULONG_MAX)
> > +	if (n >= stack_trace_max.nr_entries || stack_dump_trace[n] == ULONG_MAX)
> 
> We have:
> 
> static unsigned long stack_dump_trace[STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES+1] =
> 	 { [0 ... (STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES)] = ULONG_MAX };
> 
>  And
> 
> struct stack_trace stack_trace_max = {
> 	.max_entries		= STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES - 1,
> 	.entries		= &stack_dump_trace[0],
> };
> 
> 
> And nr_entries is set as this, and we have after that this:
> 
> 	stack_trace_max.nr_entries = x;
> 	for (; x < i; x++)
> 		stack_dump_trace[x] = ULONG_MAX;
> 
> Where we set stack_dump_trace[nr_entries] to ULONG_MAX.
> 
> Thus, nr_entries will not go pass the size of stack_dump_trace.
> 
> That said, if n == nr_entries, the second part of that if will always
> be true. And this is a bit subtle, so I will apply the patch. But it is
> not an off by one bug ;-)

Ah, yes.  I follow that now.  Thanks for taking the time to review this
patch.

I am optimistic that eventually I will fix how Smatch handles loops so
it maybe will be able to figure out that "x <= STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES - 1"
but that's probably some time off.

regards,
dan carpenter


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] tracing: Fix an off by one in __next()
@ 2018-11-27 20:04     ` Dan Carpenter
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2018-11-27 20:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Steven Rostedt; +Cc: Ingo Molnar, linux-kernel, kernel-janitors

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 01:44:12PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> Doing the sweep of my INBOX, I came across this patch (it was sent
> while I was in the Alps :-)
> 
> 
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:08:00 +0300
> Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> > The > should be >= to prevent an off by one bug.
> 
> Well, not really.
> 
> > 
> > >From reviewing the code, it seems possible for  
> > stack_trace_max.nr_entries to be set to .max_entries and in that case we
> > would be reading one element beyond the end of the stack_dump_trace[]
> > array.  If it's not set to .max_entries then the bug doesn't affect
> > runtime.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c b/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c
> > index 4237eba4ef20..6e3edd745c68 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c
> > @@ -286,7 +286,7 @@ __next(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *pos)
> >  {
> >  	long n = *pos - 1;
> >  
> > -	if (n > stack_trace_max.nr_entries || stack_dump_trace[n] = ULONG_MAX)
> > +	if (n >= stack_trace_max.nr_entries || stack_dump_trace[n] = ULONG_MAX)
> 
> We have:
> 
> static unsigned long stack_dump_trace[STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES+1] > 	 { [0 ... (STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES)] = ULONG_MAX };
> 
>  And
> 
> struct stack_trace stack_trace_max = {
> 	.max_entries		= STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES - 1,
> 	.entries		= &stack_dump_trace[0],
> };
> 
> 
> And nr_entries is set as this, and we have after that this:
> 
> 	stack_trace_max.nr_entries = x;
> 	for (; x < i; x++)
> 		stack_dump_trace[x] = ULONG_MAX;
> 
> Where we set stack_dump_trace[nr_entries] to ULONG_MAX.
> 
> Thus, nr_entries will not go pass the size of stack_dump_trace.
> 
> That said, if n = nr_entries, the second part of that if will always
> be true. And this is a bit subtle, so I will apply the patch. But it is
> not an off by one bug ;-)

Ah, yes.  I follow that now.  Thanks for taking the time to review this
patch.

I am optimistic that eventually I will fix how Smatch handles loops so
it maybe will be able to figure out that "x <= STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES - 1"
but that's probably some time off.

regards,
dan carpenter

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2018-11-27 20:04 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-06-20 11:08 [PATCH] tracing: Fix an off by one in __next() Dan Carpenter
2018-06-20 11:08 ` Dan Carpenter
2018-11-27 18:44 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-11-27 18:44   ` Steven Rostedt
2018-11-27 20:04   ` Dan Carpenter
2018-11-27 20:04     ` Dan Carpenter

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.