UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[syzbot]

Hello,

syzbot found the following issue on:

HEAD commit:    5e60366d Merge tag 'fallthrough-fixes-clang-5.11-rc1' of g..
git tree:       upstream
console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=12b12c13500000
kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=267a60b188ded8ed
dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=8f90d005ab2d22342b6d
compiler:       clang version 11.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git ca2dcbd030eadbf0aa9b660efe864ff08af6e18b)

Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this issue yet.

IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit:
Reported-by: syzbot+8f90d005ab2d22342b6d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com

================================================================================
UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in ./include/linux/skbuff.h:2021:28
member access within address 0000000085889cc2 with insufficient space
for an object of type 'struct sk_buff'
CPU: 1 PID: 2998 Comm: kworker/1:2 Not tainted 5.10.0-syzkaller #0
Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 01/01/2011
Workqueue: ipv6_addrconf addrconf_dad_work
Call Trace:
 __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:79 [inline]
 dump_stack+0x137/0x1be lib/dump_stack.c:120
 ubsan_epilogue lib/ubsan.c:148 [inline]
 handle_object_size_mismatch lib/ubsan.c:297 [inline]
 ubsan_type_mismatch_common+0x1e2/0x390 lib/ubsan.c:310
 __ubsan_handle_type_mismatch_v1+0x41/0x50 lib/ubsan.c:339
 __skb_queue_before include/linux/skbuff.h:2021 [inline]
 __skb_queue_tail include/linux/skbuff.h:2054 [inline]
 wg_xmit+0x45d/0xdf0 drivers/net/wireguard/device.c:182
 __netdev_start_xmit include/linux/netdevice.h:4775 [inline]
 netdev_start_xmit+0x7b/0x140 include/linux/netdevice.h:4789
 xmit_one net/core/dev.c:3556 [inline]
 dev_hard_start_xmit+0x182/0x2e0 net/core/dev.c:3572
 __dev_queue_xmit+0x1229/0x1e60 net/core/dev.c:4133
 neigh_output include/net/neighbour.h:510 [inline]
 ip6_finish_output2+0xe8d/0x11e0 net/ipv6/ip6_output.c:117
 dst_output include/net/dst.h:441 [inline]
 NF_HOOK include/linux/netfilter.h:301 [inline]
 ndisc_send_skb+0x85b/0xc70 net/ipv6/ndisc.c:508
 addrconf_dad_completed+0x5ef/0x990 net/ipv6/addrconf.c:4192
 addrconf_dad_work+0xb92/0x1480 net/ipv6/addrconf.c:3959
 process_one_work+0x471/0x830 kernel/workqueue.c:2275
 worker_thread+0x757/0xb10 kernel/workqueue.c:2421
 kthread+0x39a/0x3c0 kernel/kthread.c:292
 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:296
================================================================================


---
This report is generated by a bot. It may contain errors.
See https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ for more information about syzbot.
syzbot engineers can be reached at syzkaller@googlegroups.com.

syzbot will keep track of this issue. See:
https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ#status for how to communicate with syzbot.

UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[syzbot]

Hello,

syzbot found the following issue on:

HEAD commit:    5e60366d Merge tag 'fallthrough-fixes-clang-5.11-rc1' of g..
git tree:       upstream
console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=12b12c13500000
kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=267a60b188ded8ed
dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=8f90d005ab2d22342b6d
compiler:       clang version 11.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git ca2dcbd030eadbf0aa9b660efe864ff08af6e18b)

Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this issue yet.

IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit:
Reported-by: syzbot+8f90d005ab2d22342b6d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com

================================================================================
UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in ./include/linux/skbuff.h:2021:28
member access within address 0000000085889cc2 with insufficient space
for an object of type 'struct sk_buff'
CPU: 1 PID: 2998 Comm: kworker/1:2 Not tainted 5.10.0-syzkaller #0
Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 01/01/2011
Workqueue: ipv6_addrconf addrconf_dad_work
Call Trace:
 __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:79 [inline]
 dump_stack+0x137/0x1be lib/dump_stack.c:120
 ubsan_epilogue lib/ubsan.c:148 [inline]
 handle_object_size_mismatch lib/ubsan.c:297 [inline]
 ubsan_type_mismatch_common+0x1e2/0x390 lib/ubsan.c:310
 __ubsan_handle_type_mismatch_v1+0x41/0x50 lib/ubsan.c:339
 __skb_queue_before include/linux/skbuff.h:2021 [inline]
 __skb_queue_tail include/linux/skbuff.h:2054 [inline]
 wg_xmit+0x45d/0xdf0 drivers/net/wireguard/device.c:182
 __netdev_start_xmit include/linux/netdevice.h:4775 [inline]
 netdev_start_xmit+0x7b/0x140 include/linux/netdevice.h:4789
 xmit_one net/core/dev.c:3556 [inline]
 dev_hard_start_xmit+0x182/0x2e0 net/core/dev.c:3572
 __dev_queue_xmit+0x1229/0x1e60 net/core/dev.c:4133
 neigh_output include/net/neighbour.h:510 [inline]
 ip6_finish_output2+0xe8d/0x11e0 net/ipv6/ip6_output.c:117
 dst_output include/net/dst.h:441 [inline]
 NF_HOOK include/linux/netfilter.h:301 [inline]
 ndisc_send_skb+0x85b/0xc70 net/ipv6/ndisc.c:508
 addrconf_dad_completed+0x5ef/0x990 net/ipv6/addrconf.c:4192
 addrconf_dad_work+0xb92/0x1480 net/ipv6/addrconf.c:3959
 process_one_work+0x471/0x830 kernel/workqueue.c:2275
 worker_thread+0x757/0xb10 kernel/workqueue.c:2421
 kthread+0x39a/0x3c0 kernel/kthread.c:292
 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:296
================================================================================


---
This report is generated by a bot. It may contain errors.
See https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ for more information about syzbot.
syzbot engineers can be reached at syzkaller@googlegroups.com.

syzbot will keep track of this issue. See:
https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ#status for how to communicate with syzbot.

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

Hmm, on first glance, I'm not sure I'm seeing the bug:

On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 5:54 PM syzbot
<syzbot+8f90d005ab2d22342b6d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com> wrote:
> UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in ./include/linux/skbuff.h:2021:28
> member access within address 0000000085889cc2 with insufficient space
> for an object of type 'struct sk_buff'
>  __skb_queue_before include/linux/skbuff.h:2021 [inline]
>  __skb_queue_tail include/linux/skbuff.h:2054 [inline]
>  wg_xmit+0x45d/0xdf0 drivers/net/wireguard/device.c:182

The code in question is:

        struct sk_buff_head packets;
        __skb_queue_head_init(&packets);
...
        skb_list_walk_safe(skb, skb, next) {
               skb_mark_not_on_list(skb);

               skb = skb_share_check(skb, GFP_ATOMIC);
               if (unlikely(!skb))
                       continue;
...
               __skb_queue_tail(&packets, skb);
       }

We're in a netdev's xmit function, so nothing else should have skb at
that point. Given the warning is about "member access", I assume it's
the next->prev dereference here:

static inline void __skb_queue_before(struct sk_buff_head *list,
                                     struct sk_buff *next,
                                     struct sk_buff *newsk)
{
       __skb_insert(newsk, next->prev, next, list);
}

So where is "next" coming from that UBSAN would complain about
object-size-mismatch?

static inline void __skb_queue_tail(struct sk_buff_head *list,
                                  struct sk_buff *newsk)
{
       __skb_queue_before(list, (struct sk_buff *)list, newsk);
}

It comes from casting "list" into an sk_buff. While this might be some
CFI-violating polymorphism, I can't see why this cast would actually
be a problem in practice. The top of sk_buff is intentionally the same
as sk_buff_head:

struct sk_buff_head {
       struct sk_buff  *next;
       struct sk_buff  *prev;
...
struct sk_buff {
       union {
               struct {
                       struct sk_buff          *next;
                       struct sk_buff          *prev;
...

I'd suspect, "oh maybe it's just a clang 11 bug", but syzbot says it
can't reproduce. So that makes me a little more nervous.

Does anybody see something I've missed?

Jason

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

Hmm, on first glance, I'm not sure I'm seeing the bug:

On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 5:54 PM syzbot
<syzbot+8f90d005ab2d22342b6d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com> wrote:
> UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in ./include/linux/skbuff.h:2021:28
> member access within address 0000000085889cc2 with insufficient space
> for an object of type 'struct sk_buff'
>  __skb_queue_before include/linux/skbuff.h:2021 [inline]
>  __skb_queue_tail include/linux/skbuff.h:2054 [inline]
>  wg_xmit+0x45d/0xdf0 drivers/net/wireguard/device.c:182

The code in question is:

        struct sk_buff_head packets;
        __skb_queue_head_init(&packets);
...
        skb_list_walk_safe(skb, skb, next) {
               skb_mark_not_on_list(skb);

               skb = skb_share_check(skb, GFP_ATOMIC);
               if (unlikely(!skb))
                       continue;
...
               __skb_queue_tail(&packets, skb);
       }

We're in a netdev's xmit function, so nothing else should have skb at
that point. Given the warning is about "member access", I assume it's
the next->prev dereference here:

static inline void __skb_queue_before(struct sk_buff_head *list,
                                     struct sk_buff *next,
                                     struct sk_buff *newsk)
{
       __skb_insert(newsk, next->prev, next, list);
}

So where is "next" coming from that UBSAN would complain about
object-size-mismatch?

static inline void __skb_queue_tail(struct sk_buff_head *list,
                                  struct sk_buff *newsk)
{
       __skb_queue_before(list, (struct sk_buff *)list, newsk);
}

It comes from casting "list" into an sk_buff. While this might be some
CFI-violating polymorphism, I can't see why this cast would actually
be a problem in practice. The top of sk_buff is intentionally the same
as sk_buff_head:

struct sk_buff_head {
       struct sk_buff  *next;
       struct sk_buff  *prev;
...
struct sk_buff {
       union {
               struct {
                       struct sk_buff          *next;
                       struct sk_buff          *prev;
...

I'd suspect, "oh maybe it's just a clang 11 bug", but syzbot says it
can't reproduce. So that makes me a little more nervous.

Does anybody see something I've missed?

Jason

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Dmitry Vyukov]

On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 10:11 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> Hmm, on first glance, I'm not sure I'm seeing the bug:
>
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 5:54 PM syzbot
> <syzbot+8f90d005ab2d22342b6d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com> wrote:
> > UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in ./include/linux/skbuff.h:2021:28
> > member access within address 0000000085889cc2 with insufficient space
> > for an object of type 'struct sk_buff'
> >  __skb_queue_before include/linux/skbuff.h:2021 [inline]
> >  __skb_queue_tail include/linux/skbuff.h:2054 [inline]
> >  wg_xmit+0x45d/0xdf0 drivers/net/wireguard/device.c:182
>
> The code in question is:
>
>         struct sk_buff_head packets;
>         __skb_queue_head_init(&packets);
> ...
>         skb_list_walk_safe(skb, skb, next) {
>                skb_mark_not_on_list(skb);
>
>                skb = skb_share_check(skb, GFP_ATOMIC);
>                if (unlikely(!skb))
>                        continue;
> ...
>                __skb_queue_tail(&packets, skb);
>        }
>
> We're in a netdev's xmit function, so nothing else should have skb at
> that point. Given the warning is about "member access", I assume it's
> the next->prev dereference here:
>
> static inline void __skb_queue_before(struct sk_buff_head *list,
>                                      struct sk_buff *next,
>                                      struct sk_buff *newsk)
> {
>        __skb_insert(newsk, next->prev, next, list);
> }
>
> So where is "next" coming from that UBSAN would complain about
> object-size-mismatch?
>
> static inline void __skb_queue_tail(struct sk_buff_head *list,
>                                   struct sk_buff *newsk)
> {
>        __skb_queue_before(list, (struct sk_buff *)list, newsk);
> }
>
> It comes from casting "list" into an sk_buff. While this might be some
> CFI-violating polymorphism, I can't see why this cast would actually
> be a problem in practice. The top of sk_buff is intentionally the same
> as sk_buff_head:
>
> struct sk_buff_head {
>        struct sk_buff  *next;
>        struct sk_buff  *prev;
> ...
> struct sk_buff {
>        union {
>                struct {
>                        struct sk_buff          *next;
>                        struct sk_buff          *prev;
> ...
>
> I'd suspect, "oh maybe it's just a clang 11 bug", but syzbot says it
> can't reproduce. So that makes me a little more nervous.
>
> Does anybody see something I've missed?

+Kees for UBSAN report questions

Hi Jason,

Thanks for looking into this.

Reading clang docs for ubsan:

https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.html
-fsanitize=object-size: An attempt to potentially use bytes which the
optimizer can determine are not part of the object being accessed.
This will also detect some types of undefined behavior that may not
directly access memory, but are provably incorrect given the size of
the objects involved, such as invalid downcasts and calling methods on
invalid pointers. These checks are made in terms of
__builtin_object_size, and consequently may be able to detect more
problems at higher optimization levels.

From skimming though your description this seems to fall into
"provably incorrect given the size of the objects involved".
I guess it's one of these cases which trigger undefined behavior and
compiler can e.g. remove all of this code assuming it will be never
called at runtime and any branches leading to it will always branch in
other directions, or something.

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Dmitry Vyukov]

On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 10:11 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> Hmm, on first glance, I'm not sure I'm seeing the bug:
>
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 5:54 PM syzbot
> <syzbot+8f90d005ab2d22342b6d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com> wrote:
> > UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in ./include/linux/skbuff.h:2021:28
> > member access within address 0000000085889cc2 with insufficient space
> > for an object of type 'struct sk_buff'
> >  __skb_queue_before include/linux/skbuff.h:2021 [inline]
> >  __skb_queue_tail include/linux/skbuff.h:2054 [inline]
> >  wg_xmit+0x45d/0xdf0 drivers/net/wireguard/device.c:182
>
> The code in question is:
>
>         struct sk_buff_head packets;
>         __skb_queue_head_init(&packets);
> ...
>         skb_list_walk_safe(skb, skb, next) {
>                skb_mark_not_on_list(skb);
>
>                skb = skb_share_check(skb, GFP_ATOMIC);
>                if (unlikely(!skb))
>                        continue;
> ...
>                __skb_queue_tail(&packets, skb);
>        }
>
> We're in a netdev's xmit function, so nothing else should have skb at
> that point. Given the warning is about "member access", I assume it's
> the next->prev dereference here:
>
> static inline void __skb_queue_before(struct sk_buff_head *list,
>                                      struct sk_buff *next,
>                                      struct sk_buff *newsk)
> {
>        __skb_insert(newsk, next->prev, next, list);
> }
>
> So where is "next" coming from that UBSAN would complain about
> object-size-mismatch?
>
> static inline void __skb_queue_tail(struct sk_buff_head *list,
>                                   struct sk_buff *newsk)
> {
>        __skb_queue_before(list, (struct sk_buff *)list, newsk);
> }
>
> It comes from casting "list" into an sk_buff. While this might be some
> CFI-violating polymorphism, I can't see why this cast would actually
> be a problem in practice. The top of sk_buff is intentionally the same
> as sk_buff_head:
>
> struct sk_buff_head {
>        struct sk_buff  *next;
>        struct sk_buff  *prev;
> ...
> struct sk_buff {
>        union {
>                struct {
>                        struct sk_buff          *next;
>                        struct sk_buff          *prev;
> ...
>
> I'd suspect, "oh maybe it's just a clang 11 bug", but syzbot says it
> can't reproduce. So that makes me a little more nervous.
>
> Does anybody see something I've missed?

+Kees for UBSAN report questions

Hi Jason,

Thanks for looking into this.

Reading clang docs for ubsan:

https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.html
-fsanitize=object-size: An attempt to potentially use bytes which the
optimizer can determine are not part of the object being accessed.
This will also detect some types of undefined behavior that may not
directly access memory, but are provably incorrect given the size of
the objects involved, such as invalid downcasts and calling methods on
invalid pointers. These checks are made in terms of
__builtin_object_size, and consequently may be able to detect more
problems at higher optimization levels.

From skimming though your description this seems to fall into
"provably incorrect given the size of the objects involved".
I guess it's one of these cases which trigger undefined behavior and
compiler can e.g. remove all of this code assuming it will be never
called at runtime and any branches leading to it will always branch in
other directions, or something.

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

Hi Dmitry,

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 10:14 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> Thanks for looking into this.
>
> Reading clang docs for ubsan:
>
> https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.html
> -fsanitize=object-size: An attempt to potentially use bytes which the
> optimizer can determine are not part of the object being accessed.
> This will also detect some types of undefined behavior that may not
> directly access memory, but are provably incorrect given the size of
> the objects involved, such as invalid downcasts and calling methods on
> invalid pointers. These checks are made in terms of
> __builtin_object_size, and consequently may be able to detect more
> problems at higher optimization levels.
>
> From skimming though your description this seems to fall into
> "provably incorrect given the size of the objects involved".
> I guess it's one of these cases which trigger undefined behavior and
> compiler can e.g. remove all of this code assuming it will be never
> called at runtime and any branches leading to it will always branch in
> other directions, or something.

Right that sort of makes sense, and I can imagine that in more general
cases the struct casting could lead to UB. But what has me scratching
my head is that syzbot couldn't reproduce. The cast happens every
time. What about that one time was special? Did the address happen to
fall on the border of a mapping? Is UBSAN non-deterministic as an
optimization? Or is there actually some mysterious UaF happening with
my usage of skbs that I shouldn't overlook?

Jason

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

Hi Dmitry,

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 10:14 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> Thanks for looking into this.
>
> Reading clang docs for ubsan:
>
> https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.html
> -fsanitize=object-size: An attempt to potentially use bytes which the
> optimizer can determine are not part of the object being accessed.
> This will also detect some types of undefined behavior that may not
> directly access memory, but are provably incorrect given the size of
> the objects involved, such as invalid downcasts and calling methods on
> invalid pointers. These checks are made in terms of
> __builtin_object_size, and consequently may be able to detect more
> problems at higher optimization levels.
>
> From skimming though your description this seems to fall into
> "provably incorrect given the size of the objects involved".
> I guess it's one of these cases which trigger undefined behavior and
> compiler can e.g. remove all of this code assuming it will be never
> called at runtime and any branches leading to it will always branch in
> other directions, or something.

Right that sort of makes sense, and I can imagine that in more general
cases the struct casting could lead to UB. But what has me scratching
my head is that syzbot couldn't reproduce. The cast happens every
time. What about that one time was special? Did the address happen to
fall on the border of a mapping? Is UBSAN non-deterministic as an
optimization? Or is there actually some mysterious UaF happening with
my usage of skbs that I shouldn't overlook?

Jason

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Dmitry Vyukov]

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 12:23 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 10:14 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> > Hi Jason,
> >
> > Thanks for looking into this.
> >
> > Reading clang docs for ubsan:
> >
> > https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.html
> > -fsanitize=object-size: An attempt to potentially use bytes which the
> > optimizer can determine are not part of the object being accessed.
> > This will also detect some types of undefined behavior that may not
> > directly access memory, but are provably incorrect given the size of
> > the objects involved, such as invalid downcasts and calling methods on
> > invalid pointers. These checks are made in terms of
> > __builtin_object_size, and consequently may be able to detect more
> > problems at higher optimization levels.
> >
> > From skimming though your description this seems to fall into
> > "provably incorrect given the size of the objects involved".
> > I guess it's one of these cases which trigger undefined behavior and
> > compiler can e.g. remove all of this code assuming it will be never
> > called at runtime and any branches leading to it will always branch in
> > other directions, or something.
>
> Right that sort of makes sense, and I can imagine that in more general
> cases the struct casting could lead to UB. But what has me scratching
> my head is that syzbot couldn't reproduce. The cast happens every
> time. What about that one time was special? Did the address happen to
> fall on the border of a mapping? Is UBSAN non-deterministic as an
> optimization? Or is there actually some mysterious UaF happening with
> my usage of skbs that I shouldn't overlook?

These UBSAN checks were just enabled recently.
It's indeed super easy to trigger: 133083 VMs were crashed on this already:
https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=8f90d005ab2d22342b6d
So it's one of the top crashers by now.

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Dmitry Vyukov]

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 12:23 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 10:14 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> > Hi Jason,
> >
> > Thanks for looking into this.
> >
> > Reading clang docs for ubsan:
> >
> > https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.html
> > -fsanitize=object-size: An attempt to potentially use bytes which the
> > optimizer can determine are not part of the object being accessed.
> > This will also detect some types of undefined behavior that may not
> > directly access memory, but are provably incorrect given the size of
> > the objects involved, such as invalid downcasts and calling methods on
> > invalid pointers. These checks are made in terms of
> > __builtin_object_size, and consequently may be able to detect more
> > problems at higher optimization levels.
> >
> > From skimming though your description this seems to fall into
> > "provably incorrect given the size of the objects involved".
> > I guess it's one of these cases which trigger undefined behavior and
> > compiler can e.g. remove all of this code assuming it will be never
> > called at runtime and any branches leading to it will always branch in
> > other directions, or something.
>
> Right that sort of makes sense, and I can imagine that in more general
> cases the struct casting could lead to UB. But what has me scratching
> my head is that syzbot couldn't reproduce. The cast happens every
> time. What about that one time was special? Did the address happen to
> fall on the border of a mapping? Is UBSAN non-deterministic as an
> optimization? Or is there actually some mysterious UaF happening with
> my usage of skbs that I shouldn't overlook?

These UBSAN checks were just enabled recently.
It's indeed super easy to trigger: 133083 VMs were crashed on this already:
https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=8f90d005ab2d22342b6d
So it's one of the top crashers by now.

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 1:22 PM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 12:23 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Dmitry,
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 10:14 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> > > Hi Jason,
> > >
> > > Thanks for looking into this.
> > >
> > > Reading clang docs for ubsan:
> > >
> > > https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.html
> > > -fsanitize=object-size: An attempt to potentially use bytes which the
> > > optimizer can determine are not part of the object being accessed.
> > > This will also detect some types of undefined behavior that may not
> > > directly access memory, but are provably incorrect given the size of
> > > the objects involved, such as invalid downcasts and calling methods on
> > > invalid pointers. These checks are made in terms of
> > > __builtin_object_size, and consequently may be able to detect more
> > > problems at higher optimization levels.
> > >
> > > From skimming though your description this seems to fall into
> > > "provably incorrect given the size of the objects involved".
> > > I guess it's one of these cases which trigger undefined behavior and
> > > compiler can e.g. remove all of this code assuming it will be never
> > > called at runtime and any branches leading to it will always branch in
> > > other directions, or something.
> >
> > Right that sort of makes sense, and I can imagine that in more general
> > cases the struct casting could lead to UB. But what has me scratching
> > my head is that syzbot couldn't reproduce. The cast happens every
> > time. What about that one time was special? Did the address happen to
> > fall on the border of a mapping? Is UBSAN non-deterministic as an
> > optimization? Or is there actually some mysterious UaF happening with
> > my usage of skbs that I shouldn't overlook?
>
> These UBSAN checks were just enabled recently.
> It's indeed super easy to trigger: 133083 VMs were crashed on this already:
> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=8f90d005ab2d22342b6d
> So it's one of the top crashers by now.

Ahh, makes sense. So it is easily reproducible after all.

You're still of the opinion that it's a false positive, right? I
shouldn't spend more cycles on this?


Jason

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Jeffrey Walton]

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:03 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 1:22 PM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 12:23 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> >
> > These UBSAN checks were just enabled recently.
> > It's indeed super easy to trigger: 133083 VMs were crashed on this already:
> > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=8f90d005ab2d22342b6d
> > So it's one of the top crashers by now.
>
> Ahh, makes sense. So it is easily reproducible after all.
>
> You're still of the opinion that it's a false positive, right? I
> shouldn't spend more cycles on this?

You might consider making a test build with -fno-lto in case LTO is
mucking things up.

Google Posts Patches So The Linux Kernel Can Be LTO-Optimized By
Clang, https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-Kernel-Clang-LTO-Patches

Jeff

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Jeffrey Walton]

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:03 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 1:22 PM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 12:23 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> >
> > These UBSAN checks were just enabled recently.
> > It's indeed super easy to trigger: 133083 VMs were crashed on this already:
> > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=8f90d005ab2d22342b6d
> > So it's one of the top crashers by now.
>
> Ahh, makes sense. So it is easily reproducible after all.
>
> You're still of the opinion that it's a false positive, right? I
> shouldn't spend more cycles on this?

You might consider making a test build with -fno-lto in case LTO is
mucking things up.

Google Posts Patches So The Linux Kernel Can Be LTO-Optimized By
Clang, https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-Kernel-Clang-LTO-Patches

Jeff

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Corey Costello]

Get me off this fucking list ffs.



> On Jan 7, 2021, at 2:06 PM, Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:03 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 1:22 PM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 12:23 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> ...
>>> 
>>> These UBSAN checks were just enabled recently.
>>> It's indeed super easy to trigger: 133083 VMs were crashed on this already:
>>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fsyzkaller.appspot.com%2fbug%3fextid%3d8f90d005ab2d22342b6d&c=E,1,RVpgZsRUCGs2jKlumiMAMnpeOF4QdiW5h8GDIsBJPz-orFNwvwCXnceC9n5Bhr1h-G2EsU0tlC7N4QUpHuF6tIMI7tTnBoRjAo5tT-Bk9-Fhe8CppuOL4mqdkA,,&typo=1
>>> So it's one of the top crashers by now.
>> 
>> Ahh, makes sense. So it is easily reproducible after all.
>> 
>> You're still of the opinion that it's a false positive, right? I
>> shouldn't spend more cycles on this?
> 
> You might consider making a test build with -fno-lto in case LTO is
> mucking things up.
> 
> Google Posts Patches So The Linux Kernel Can Be LTO-Optimized By
> Clang, https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.phoronix.com%2fscan.php%3fpage%3dnews_item%26px%3dLinux-Kernel-Clang-LTO-Patches&c=E,1,7u3-jWadklYo8ai_XrPNvjnu46LLAyg0hqsGIaMPaoQ5UxtcNM84jrHUgSg4VciXKk9XVpwgyBwD85LbbW5_j195jSH6RrAej45I1kr_XfQ,&typo=1
> 
> Jeff

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Eric Light]

Corey - have you tried unsubscribing at the unsubscribe page?  https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/options/wireguard

Hope this helps,

E

--------------------------------------------
Q: Why is this email five sentences or less?
A: http://five.sentenc.es

On Fri, 8 Jan 2021, at 13:34, Corey Costello wrote:
> Get me off this fucking list ffs.
> 
> 
> 
> > On Jan 7, 2021, at 2:06 PM, Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:03 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 1:22 PM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 12:23 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>> ...
> >>> 
> >>> These UBSAN checks were just enabled recently.
> >>> It's indeed super easy to trigger: 133083 VMs were crashed on this already:
> >>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fsyzkaller.appspot.com%2fbug%3fextid%3d8f90d005ab2d22342b6d&c=E,1,RVpgZsRUCGs2jKlumiMAMnpeOF4QdiW5h8GDIsBJPz-orFNwvwCXnceC9n5Bhr1h-G2EsU0tlC7N4QUpHuF6tIMI7tTnBoRjAo5tT-Bk9-Fhe8CppuOL4mqdkA,,&typo=1
> >>> So it's one of the top crashers by now.
> >> 
> >> Ahh, makes sense. So it is easily reproducible after all.
> >> 
> >> You're still of the opinion that it's a false positive, right? I
> >> shouldn't spend more cycles on this?
> > 
> > You might consider making a test build with -fno-lto in case LTO is
> > mucking things up.
> > 
> > Google Posts Patches So The Linux Kernel Can Be LTO-Optimized By
> > Clang, https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.phoronix.com%2fscan.php%3fpage%3dnews_item%26px%3dLinux-Kernel-Clang-LTO-Patches&c=E,1,7u3-jWadklYo8ai_XrPNvjnu46LLAyg0hqsGIaMPaoQ5UxtcNM84jrHUgSg4VciXKk9XVpwgyBwD85LbbW5_j195jSH6RrAej45I1kr_XfQ,&typo=1
> > 
> > Jeff
> 
>

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Corey Costello]

Yeah, it doesn’t work for me :( 

> On Jan 7, 2021, at 7:42 PM, Eric Light <eric@ericlight.com> wrote:
> 
> Corey - have you tried unsubscribing at the unsubscribe page?  https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.zx2c4.com%2fmailman%2foptions%2fwireguard&c=E,1,Axa-ElbX0arA0gS27knqMcMnUXikmpGux0uV7Gv66JniMpXRVVtWNeYE8mu17nQawpfQEodteBfH9tq43ronGkmm07T_Tq9urTmtYLTTK8YwFg,,&typo=1
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> E
> 
> --------------------------------------------
> Q: Why is this email five sentences or less?
> A: https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffive.sentenc.es&c=E,1,L28_oBFr0CKAXDsG0BiDkDDhOYaG4FoH7vdeaKoqnsVwn14kiz9J_PpjMZAoItr_wdFvmWS4wAI7qDgBPljT8qxgdAwCA9Vy54M3bcq8nJBKnA11GFTTG6BEv04,&typo=1
> 
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2021, at 13:34, Corey Costello wrote:
>> Get me off this fucking list ffs.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 7, 2021, at 2:06 PM, Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:03 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 1:22 PM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 12:23 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ...
>>>>> 
>>>>> These UBSAN checks were just enabled recently.
>>>>> It's indeed super easy to trigger: 133083 VMs were crashed on this already:
>>>>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fsyzkaller.appspot.com%2fbug%3fextid%3d8f90d005ab2d22342b6d&c=E,1,RVpgZsRUCGs2jKlumiMAMnpeOF4QdiW5h8GDIsBJPz-orFNwvwCXnceC9n5Bhr1h-G2EsU0tlC7N4QUpHuF6tIMI7tTnBoRjAo5tT-Bk9-Fhe8CppuOL4mqdkA,,&typo=1
>>>>> So it's one of the top crashers by now.
>>>> 
>>>> Ahh, makes sense. So it is easily reproducible after all.
>>>> 
>>>> You're still of the opinion that it's a false positive, right? I
>>>> shouldn't spend more cycles on this?
>>> 
>>> You might consider making a test build with -fno-lto in case LTO is
>>> mucking things up.
>>> 
>>> Google Posts Patches So The Linux Kernel Can Be LTO-Optimized By
>>> Clang, https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.phoronix.com%2fscan.php%3fpage%3dnews_item%26px%3dLinux-Kernel-Clang-LTO-Patches&c=E,1,7u3-jWadklYo8ai_XrPNvjnu46LLAyg0hqsGIaMPaoQ5UxtcNM84jrHUgSg4VciXKk9XVpwgyBwD85LbbW5_j195jSH6RrAej45I1kr_XfQ,&typo=1
>>> 
>>> Jeff
>> 
>> 

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Eric Light]

@List - I'll reach out to Corey directly and try to help.  Sorry for the noise.

E

--------------------------------------------
Q: Why is this email five sentences or less?
A: http://five.sentenc.es

On Fri, 8 Jan 2021, at 13:44, Corey Costello wrote:
> Yeah, it doesn’t work for me :( 
> 
> > On Jan 7, 2021, at 7:42 PM, Eric Light <eric@ericlight.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Corey - have you tried unsubscribing at the unsubscribe page?  https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.zx2c4.com%2fmailman%2foptions%2fwireguard&c=E,1,Axa-ElbX0arA0gS27knqMcMnUXikmpGux0uV7Gv66JniMpXRVVtWNeYE8mu17nQawpfQEodteBfH9tq43ronGkmm07T_Tq9urTmtYLTTK8YwFg,,&typo=1
> > 
> > Hope this helps,
> > 
> > E
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------
> > Q: Why is this email five sentences or less?
> > A: https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffive.sentenc.es&c=E,1,L28_oBFr0CKAXDsG0BiDkDDhOYaG4FoH7vdeaKoqnsVwn14kiz9J_PpjMZAoItr_wdFvmWS4wAI7qDgBPljT8qxgdAwCA9Vy54M3bcq8nJBKnA11GFTTG6BEv04,&typo=1
> > 
> > On Fri, 8 Jan 2021, at 13:34, Corey Costello wrote:
> >> Get me off this fucking list ffs.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> On Jan 7, 2021, at 2:06 PM, Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:03 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 1:22 PM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 12:23 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> These UBSAN checks were just enabled recently.
> >>>>> It's indeed super easy to trigger: 133083 VMs were crashed on this already:
> >>>>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fsyzkaller.appspot.com%2fbug%3fextid%3d8f90d005ab2d22342b6d&c=E,1,RVpgZsRUCGs2jKlumiMAMnpeOF4QdiW5h8GDIsBJPz-orFNwvwCXnceC9n5Bhr1h-G2EsU0tlC7N4QUpHuF6tIMI7tTnBoRjAo5tT-Bk9-Fhe8CppuOL4mqdkA,,&typo=1
> >>>>> So it's one of the top crashers by now.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Ahh, makes sense. So it is easily reproducible after all.
> >>>> 
> >>>> You're still of the opinion that it's a false positive, right? I
> >>>> shouldn't spend more cycles on this?
> >>> 
> >>> You might consider making a test build with -fno-lto in case LTO is
> >>> mucking things up.
> >>> 
> >>> Google Posts Patches So The Linux Kernel Can Be LTO-Optimized By
> >>> Clang, https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.phoronix.com%2fscan.php%3fpage%3dnews_item%26px%3dLinux-Kernel-Clang-LTO-Patches&c=E,1,7u3-jWadklYo8ai_XrPNvjnu46LLAyg0hqsGIaMPaoQ5UxtcNM84jrHUgSg4VciXKk9XVpwgyBwD85LbbW5_j195jSH6RrAej45I1kr_XfQ,&typo=1
> >>> 
> >>> Jeff
> >> 
> >> 
> 
>

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Phillip McMahon]

I went and did it for you. You should have a confirmation email to
respond to. Check your spam.

On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 at 01:49, Eric Light <eric@ericlight.com> wrote:
>
> Corey - have you tried unsubscribing at the unsubscribe page?  https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/options/wireguard
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> E
>
> --------------------------------------------
> Q: Why is this email five sentences or less?
> A: http://five.sentenc.es
>
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2021, at 13:34, Corey Costello wrote:
> > Get me off this fucking list ffs.
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 7, 2021, at 2:06 PM, Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:03 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 1:22 PM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 12:23 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ...
> > >>>
> > >>> These UBSAN checks were just enabled recently.
> > >>> It's indeed super easy to trigger: 133083 VMs were crashed on this already:
> > >>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fsyzkaller.appspot.com%2fbug%3fextid%3d8f90d005ab2d22342b6d&c=E,1,RVpgZsRUCGs2jKlumiMAMnpeOF4QdiW5h8GDIsBJPz-orFNwvwCXnceC9n5Bhr1h-G2EsU0tlC7N4QUpHuF6tIMI7tTnBoRjAo5tT-Bk9-Fhe8CppuOL4mqdkA,,&typo=1
> > >>> So it's one of the top crashers by now.
> > >>
> > >> Ahh, makes sense. So it is easily reproducible after all.
> > >>
> > >> You're still of the opinion that it's a false positive, right? I
> > >> shouldn't spend more cycles on this?
> > >
> > > You might consider making a test build with -fno-lto in case LTO is
> > > mucking things up.
> > >
> > > Google Posts Patches So The Linux Kernel Can Be LTO-Optimized By
> > > Clang, https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.phoronix.com%2fscan.php%3fpage%3dnews_item%26px%3dLinux-Kernel-Clang-LTO-Patches&c=E,1,7u3-jWadklYo8ai_XrPNvjnu46LLAyg0hqsGIaMPaoQ5UxtcNM84jrHUgSg4VciXKk9XVpwgyBwD85LbbW5_j195jSH6RrAej45I1kr_XfQ,&typo=1
> > >
> > > Jeff
> >
> >



-- 
Use this contact page to send me encrypted messages and files

https://flowcrypt.com/me/phillipmcmahon

P.S. Drowning in email? Try SaneBox and take back control:
http://sanebox.com/t/old3m. I love it.

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Dmitry Vyukov]

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 8:06 PM Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:03 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 1:22 PM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 12:23 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > >
> > > These UBSAN checks were just enabled recently.
> > > It's indeed super easy to trigger: 133083 VMs were crashed on this already:
> > > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=8f90d005ab2d22342b6d
> > > So it's one of the top crashers by now.
> >
> > Ahh, makes sense. So it is easily reproducible after all.
> >
> > You're still of the opinion that it's a false positive, right? I
> > shouldn't spend more cycles on this?
>
> You might consider making a test build with -fno-lto in case LTO is
> mucking things up.
>
> Google Posts Patches So The Linux Kernel Can Be LTO-Optimized By
> Clang, https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-Kernel-Clang-LTO-Patches

Hi Jeff,

Are these patches upstream now?
syzbot doesn't enable LTO intentionally, nor I see CONFIG_LTO in the
provided config.

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Dmitry Vyukov]

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 8:06 PM Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:03 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 1:22 PM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 12:23 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > >
> > > These UBSAN checks were just enabled recently.
> > > It's indeed super easy to trigger: 133083 VMs were crashed on this already:
> > > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=8f90d005ab2d22342b6d
> > > So it's one of the top crashers by now.
> >
> > Ahh, makes sense. So it is easily reproducible after all.
> >
> > You're still of the opinion that it's a false positive, right? I
> > shouldn't spend more cycles on this?
>
> You might consider making a test build with -fno-lto in case LTO is
> mucking things up.
>
> Google Posts Patches So The Linux Kernel Can Be LTO-Optimized By
> Clang, https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-Kernel-Clang-LTO-Patches

Hi Jeff,

Are these patches upstream now?
syzbot doesn't enable LTO intentionally, nor I see CONFIG_LTO in the
provided config.

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Nathan Chancellor]

On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 10:33:19AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 8:06 PM Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:03 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 1:22 PM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 12:23 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > These UBSAN checks were just enabled recently.
> > > > It's indeed super easy to trigger: 133083 VMs were crashed on this already:
> > > > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=8f90d005ab2d22342b6d
> > > > So it's one of the top crashers by now.
> > >
> > > Ahh, makes sense. So it is easily reproducible after all.
> > >
> > > You're still of the opinion that it's a false positive, right? I
> > > shouldn't spend more cycles on this?
> >
> > You might consider making a test build with -fno-lto in case LTO is
> > mucking things up.
> >
> > Google Posts Patches So The Linux Kernel Can Be LTO-Optimized By
> > Clang, https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-Kernel-Clang-LTO-Patches
> 
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> Are these patches upstream now?
> syzbot doesn't enable LTO intentionally, nor I see CONFIG_LTO in the
> provided config.

Those patches are not upstream yet and LTO will have to be explicitly
enabled via config.

Cheers,
Nathan

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Dmitry Vyukov]

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 8:00 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Dmitry,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 10:14 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi Jason,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for looking into this.
> > > >
> > > > Reading clang docs for ubsan:
> > > >
> > > > https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.html
> > > > -fsanitize=object-size: An attempt to potentially use bytes which the
> > > > optimizer can determine are not part of the object being accessed.
> > > > This will also detect some types of undefined behavior that may not
> > > > directly access memory, but are provably incorrect given the size of
> > > > the objects involved, such as invalid downcasts and calling methods on
> > > > invalid pointers. These checks are made in terms of
> > > > __builtin_object_size, and consequently may be able to detect more
> > > > problems at higher optimization levels.
> > > >
> > > > From skimming though your description this seems to fall into
> > > > "provably incorrect given the size of the objects involved".
> > > > I guess it's one of these cases which trigger undefined behavior and
> > > > compiler can e.g. remove all of this code assuming it will be never
> > > > called at runtime and any branches leading to it will always branch in
> > > > other directions, or something.
> > >
> > > Right that sort of makes sense, and I can imagine that in more general
> > > cases the struct casting could lead to UB. But what has me scratching
> > > my head is that syzbot couldn't reproduce. The cast happens every
> > > time. What about that one time was special? Did the address happen to
> > > fall on the border of a mapping? Is UBSAN non-deterministic as an
> > > optimization? Or is there actually some mysterious UaF happening with
> > > my usage of skbs that I shouldn't overlook?
> >
> > These UBSAN checks were just enabled recently.
> > It's indeed super easy to trigger: 133083 VMs were crashed on this already:
> > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=8f90d005ab2d22342b6d
> > So it's one of the top crashers by now.
>
> Ahh, makes sense. So it is easily reproducible after all.
>
> You're still of the opinion that it's a false positive, right? I
> shouldn't spend more cycles on this?

No, I am not saying this is a false positive. I think it's an
undefined behavior.
Either way, we need to resolve this one way or another to unblock
testing the rest of the kernel, if not with a fix to wg, then with a
fix to ubsan, or disable this check for kernel if kernel community
decides we want to use and keep this type of C undefined behavior in
the code base intentionally.
So far I see only 2 "UBSAN: object-size-mismatch" reports on the dashboard:
https://syzkaller.appspot.com/upstream
So cleaning them up looks doable. Is there a way to restructure the
code to not invoke undefined behavior?
Kees, do you have any suggestions on how to proceed? This seems to
stop testing of the whole kernel at the moment.

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Dmitry Vyukov]

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 8:00 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Dmitry,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 10:14 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi Jason,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for looking into this.
> > > >
> > > > Reading clang docs for ubsan:
> > > >
> > > > https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.html
> > > > -fsanitize=object-size: An attempt to potentially use bytes which the
> > > > optimizer can determine are not part of the object being accessed.
> > > > This will also detect some types of undefined behavior that may not
> > > > directly access memory, but are provably incorrect given the size of
> > > > the objects involved, such as invalid downcasts and calling methods on
> > > > invalid pointers. These checks are made in terms of
> > > > __builtin_object_size, and consequently may be able to detect more
> > > > problems at higher optimization levels.
> > > >
> > > > From skimming though your description this seems to fall into
> > > > "provably incorrect given the size of the objects involved".
> > > > I guess it's one of these cases which trigger undefined behavior and
> > > > compiler can e.g. remove all of this code assuming it will be never
> > > > called at runtime and any branches leading to it will always branch in
> > > > other directions, or something.
> > >
> > > Right that sort of makes sense, and I can imagine that in more general
> > > cases the struct casting could lead to UB. But what has me scratching
> > > my head is that syzbot couldn't reproduce. The cast happens every
> > > time. What about that one time was special? Did the address happen to
> > > fall on the border of a mapping? Is UBSAN non-deterministic as an
> > > optimization? Or is there actually some mysterious UaF happening with
> > > my usage of skbs that I shouldn't overlook?
> >
> > These UBSAN checks were just enabled recently.
> > It's indeed super easy to trigger: 133083 VMs were crashed on this already:
> > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=8f90d005ab2d22342b6d
> > So it's one of the top crashers by now.
>
> Ahh, makes sense. So it is easily reproducible after all.
>
> You're still of the opinion that it's a false positive, right? I
> shouldn't spend more cycles on this?

No, I am not saying this is a false positive. I think it's an
undefined behavior.
Either way, we need to resolve this one way or another to unblock
testing the rest of the kernel, if not with a fix to wg, then with a
fix to ubsan, or disable this check for kernel if kernel community
decides we want to use and keep this type of C undefined behavior in
the code base intentionally.
So far I see only 2 "UBSAN: object-size-mismatch" reports on the dashboard:
https://syzkaller.appspot.com/upstream
So cleaning them up looks doable. Is there a way to restructure the
code to not invoke undefined behavior?
Kees, do you have any suggestions on how to proceed? This seems to
stop testing of the whole kernel at the moment.

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Dmitry Vyukov]

On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 9:26 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 8:00 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Hi Dmitry,
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 10:14 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
>> > > > > Hi Jason,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks for looking into this.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Reading clang docs for ubsan:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.html
>> > > > > -fsanitize=object-size: An attempt to potentially use bytes which the
>> > > > > optimizer can determine are not part of the object being accessed.
>> > > > > This will also detect some types of undefined behavior that may not
>> > > > > directly access memory, but are provably incorrect given the size of
>> > > > > the objects involved, such as invalid downcasts and calling methods on
>> > > > > invalid pointers. These checks are made in terms of
>> > > > > __builtin_object_size, and consequently may be able to detect more
>> > > > > problems at higher optimization levels.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > From skimming though your description this seems to fall into
>> > > > > "provably incorrect given the size of the objects involved".
>> > > > > I guess it's one of these cases which trigger undefined behavior and
>> > > > > compiler can e.g. remove all of this code assuming it will be never
>> > > > > called at runtime and any branches leading to it will always branch in
>> > > > > other directions, or something.
>> > > >
>> > > > Right that sort of makes sense, and I can imagine that in more general
>> > > > cases the struct casting could lead to UB. But what has me scratching
>> > > > my head is that syzbot couldn't reproduce. The cast happens every
>> > > > time. What about that one time was special? Did the address happen to
>> > > > fall on the border of a mapping? Is UBSAN non-deterministic as an
>> > > > optimization? Or is there actually some mysterious UaF happening with
>> > > > my usage of skbs that I shouldn't overlook?
>> > >
>> > > These UBSAN checks were just enabled recently.
>> > > It's indeed super easy to trigger: 133083 VMs were crashed on this already:
>> > > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=8f90d005ab2d22342b6d
>> > > So it's one of the top crashers by now.
>> >
>> > Ahh, makes sense. So it is easily reproducible after all.
>> >
>> > You're still of the opinion that it's a false positive, right? I
>> > shouldn't spend more cycles on this?
>>
>> No, I am not saying this is a false positive. I think it's an
>> undefined behavior.
>>
>> Either way, we need to resolve this one way or another to unblock
>> testing the rest of the kernel, if not with a fix to wg, then with a
>> fix to ubsan, or disable this check for kernel if kernel community
>> decides we want to use and keep this type of C undefined behavior in
>> the code base intentionally.
>> So far I see only 2 "UBSAN: object-size-mismatch" reports on the dashboard:
>> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/upstream
>> So cleaning them up looks doable. Is there a way to restructure the
>> code to not invoke undefined behavior?
>
>
> Right; that's my question as well.
>
>>
>> Kees, do you have any suggestions on how to proceed? This seems to
>> stop testing of the whole kernel at the moment.
>
>
> If it's blocking other stuff and there isn't a path to fixing it soon, then I think we'll need to disable this check (and open an issue to track it).

Oh, I see, the code is actually in skbuff.h:

static inline void __skb_queue_tail(struct sk_buff_head *list, struct
sk_buff *newsk)
{
    __skb_queue_before(list, (struct sk_buff *)list, newsk);
}

It casts sk_buff_head to sk_buff relying on equal layout of some
prefix of these structs.
Is it really UB in C? UBSAN docs say:
"An attempt to potentially use bytes which the optimizer can determine
are not part of the object being accessed".
But C has POD layout for structs, right? These next/prev fields are
within sk_buff_head (otherwise things would explode).
I can imagine this may be not valid in C++, can this UBSAN check be
C++-specific? Or at least some subset of this check, I can imagine it
can detect bad bugs in C as well where things go really wrong.

If there is no quick solution proposed, I tend to disable this check
in syzbot for now. We need to clean at least common things like
sk_buff first.

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Dmitry Vyukov]

On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 9:26 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 8:00 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Hi Dmitry,
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 10:14 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
>> > > > > Hi Jason,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks for looking into this.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Reading clang docs for ubsan:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.html
>> > > > > -fsanitize=object-size: An attempt to potentially use bytes which the
>> > > > > optimizer can determine are not part of the object being accessed.
>> > > > > This will also detect some types of undefined behavior that may not
>> > > > > directly access memory, but are provably incorrect given the size of
>> > > > > the objects involved, such as invalid downcasts and calling methods on
>> > > > > invalid pointers. These checks are made in terms of
>> > > > > __builtin_object_size, and consequently may be able to detect more
>> > > > > problems at higher optimization levels.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > From skimming though your description this seems to fall into
>> > > > > "provably incorrect given the size of the objects involved".
>> > > > > I guess it's one of these cases which trigger undefined behavior and
>> > > > > compiler can e.g. remove all of this code assuming it will be never
>> > > > > called at runtime and any branches leading to it will always branch in
>> > > > > other directions, or something.
>> > > >
>> > > > Right that sort of makes sense, and I can imagine that in more general
>> > > > cases the struct casting could lead to UB. But what has me scratching
>> > > > my head is that syzbot couldn't reproduce. The cast happens every
>> > > > time. What about that one time was special? Did the address happen to
>> > > > fall on the border of a mapping? Is UBSAN non-deterministic as an
>> > > > optimization? Or is there actually some mysterious UaF happening with
>> > > > my usage of skbs that I shouldn't overlook?
>> > >
>> > > These UBSAN checks were just enabled recently.
>> > > It's indeed super easy to trigger: 133083 VMs were crashed on this already:
>> > > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=8f90d005ab2d22342b6d
>> > > So it's one of the top crashers by now.
>> >
>> > Ahh, makes sense. So it is easily reproducible after all.
>> >
>> > You're still of the opinion that it's a false positive, right? I
>> > shouldn't spend more cycles on this?
>>
>> No, I am not saying this is a false positive. I think it's an
>> undefined behavior.
>>
>> Either way, we need to resolve this one way or another to unblock
>> testing the rest of the kernel, if not with a fix to wg, then with a
>> fix to ubsan, or disable this check for kernel if kernel community
>> decides we want to use and keep this type of C undefined behavior in
>> the code base intentionally.
>> So far I see only 2 "UBSAN: object-size-mismatch" reports on the dashboard:
>> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/upstream
>> So cleaning them up looks doable. Is there a way to restructure the
>> code to not invoke undefined behavior?
>
>
> Right; that's my question as well.
>
>>
>> Kees, do you have any suggestions on how to proceed? This seems to
>> stop testing of the whole kernel at the moment.
>
>
> If it's blocking other stuff and there isn't a path to fixing it soon, then I think we'll need to disable this check (and open an issue to track it).

Oh, I see, the code is actually in skbuff.h:

static inline void __skb_queue_tail(struct sk_buff_head *list, struct
sk_buff *newsk)
{
    __skb_queue_before(list, (struct sk_buff *)list, newsk);
}

It casts sk_buff_head to sk_buff relying on equal layout of some
prefix of these structs.
Is it really UB in C? UBSAN docs say:
"An attempt to potentially use bytes which the optimizer can determine
are not part of the object being accessed".
But C has POD layout for structs, right? These next/prev fields are
within sk_buff_head (otherwise things would explode).
I can imagine this may be not valid in C++, can this UBSAN check be
C++-specific? Or at least some subset of this check, I can imagine it
can detect bad bugs in C as well where things go really wrong.

If there is no quick solution proposed, I tend to disable this check
in syzbot for now. We need to clean at least common things like
sk_buff first.

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Matthias Urlichs]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 244 bytes --]

On 09.01.21 10:46, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> It casts sk_buff_head to sk_buff relying on equal layout of some
> prefix of these structs.

This kind of construct is used with about all kernel lists ever, so …

-- 
-- Matthias Urlichs



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Dmitry Vyukov]

On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 10:46 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 9:26 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 8:00 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Hi Dmitry,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 10:14 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > Hi Jason,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Thanks for looking into this.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Reading clang docs for ubsan:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.html
> >> > > > > -fsanitize=object-size: An attempt to potentially use bytes which the
> >> > > > > optimizer can determine are not part of the object being accessed.
> >> > > > > This will also detect some types of undefined behavior that may not
> >> > > > > directly access memory, but are provably incorrect given the size of
> >> > > > > the objects involved, such as invalid downcasts and calling methods on
> >> > > > > invalid pointers. These checks are made in terms of
> >> > > > > __builtin_object_size, and consequently may be able to detect more
> >> > > > > problems at higher optimization levels.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > From skimming though your description this seems to fall into
> >> > > > > "provably incorrect given the size of the objects involved".
> >> > > > > I guess it's one of these cases which trigger undefined behavior and
> >> > > > > compiler can e.g. remove all of this code assuming it will be never
> >> > > > > called at runtime and any branches leading to it will always branch in
> >> > > > > other directions, or something.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Right that sort of makes sense, and I can imagine that in more general
> >> > > > cases the struct casting could lead to UB. But what has me scratching
> >> > > > my head is that syzbot couldn't reproduce. The cast happens every
> >> > > > time. What about that one time was special? Did the address happen to
> >> > > > fall on the border of a mapping? Is UBSAN non-deterministic as an
> >> > > > optimization? Or is there actually some mysterious UaF happening with
> >> > > > my usage of skbs that I shouldn't overlook?
> >> > >
> >> > > These UBSAN checks were just enabled recently.
> >> > > It's indeed super easy to trigger: 133083 VMs were crashed on this already:
> >> > > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=8f90d005ab2d22342b6d
> >> > > So it's one of the top crashers by now.
> >> >
> >> > Ahh, makes sense. So it is easily reproducible after all.
> >> >
> >> > You're still of the opinion that it's a false positive, right? I
> >> > shouldn't spend more cycles on this?
> >>
> >> No, I am not saying this is a false positive. I think it's an
> >> undefined behavior.
> >>
> >> Either way, we need to resolve this one way or another to unblock
> >> testing the rest of the kernel, if not with a fix to wg, then with a
> >> fix to ubsan, or disable this check for kernel if kernel community
> >> decides we want to use and keep this type of C undefined behavior in
> >> the code base intentionally.
> >> So far I see only 2 "UBSAN: object-size-mismatch" reports on the dashboard:
> >> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/upstream
> >> So cleaning them up looks doable. Is there a way to restructure the
> >> code to not invoke undefined behavior?
> >
> >
> > Right; that's my question as well.
> >
> >>
> >> Kees, do you have any suggestions on how to proceed? This seems to
> >> stop testing of the whole kernel at the moment.
> >
> >
> > If it's blocking other stuff and there isn't a path to fixing it soon, then I think we'll need to disable this check (and open an issue to track it).
>
> Oh, I see, the code is actually in skbuff.h:
>
> static inline void __skb_queue_tail(struct sk_buff_head *list, struct
> sk_buff *newsk)
> {
>     __skb_queue_before(list, (struct sk_buff *)list, newsk);
> }
>
> It casts sk_buff_head to sk_buff relying on equal layout of some
> prefix of these structs.
> Is it really UB in C? UBSAN docs say:
> "An attempt to potentially use bytes which the optimizer can determine
> are not part of the object being accessed".
> But C has POD layout for structs, right? These next/prev fields are
> within sk_buff_head (otherwise things would explode).
> I can imagine this may be not valid in C++, can this UBSAN check be
> C++-specific? Or at least some subset of this check, I can imagine it
> can detect bad bugs in C as well where things go really wrong.
>
> If there is no quick solution proposed, I tend to disable this check
> in syzbot for now. We need to clean at least common things like
> sk_buff first.


FTR, I've disabled the following UBSAN configs:
UBSAN_MISC
UBSAN_DIV_ZERO
UBSAN_BOOL
UBSAN_OBJECT_SIZE
UBSAN_SIGNED_OVERFLOW
UBSAN_UNSIGNED_OVERFLOW
UBSAN_ENUM
UBSAN_ALIGNMENT
UBSAN_UNREACHABLE

Only these are enabled now:
UBSAN_BOUNDS
UBSAN_SHIFT

This is commit:
https://github.com/google/syzkaller/commit/2c1f2513486f21d26b1942ce77ffc782677fbf4e

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Dmitry Vyukov]

On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 10:46 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 9:26 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 8:00 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Hi Dmitry,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 10:14 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > Hi Jason,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Thanks for looking into this.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Reading clang docs for ubsan:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.html
> >> > > > > -fsanitize=object-size: An attempt to potentially use bytes which the
> >> > > > > optimizer can determine are not part of the object being accessed.
> >> > > > > This will also detect some types of undefined behavior that may not
> >> > > > > directly access memory, but are provably incorrect given the size of
> >> > > > > the objects involved, such as invalid downcasts and calling methods on
> >> > > > > invalid pointers. These checks are made in terms of
> >> > > > > __builtin_object_size, and consequently may be able to detect more
> >> > > > > problems at higher optimization levels.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > From skimming though your description this seems to fall into
> >> > > > > "provably incorrect given the size of the objects involved".
> >> > > > > I guess it's one of these cases which trigger undefined behavior and
> >> > > > > compiler can e.g. remove all of this code assuming it will be never
> >> > > > > called at runtime and any branches leading to it will always branch in
> >> > > > > other directions, or something.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Right that sort of makes sense, and I can imagine that in more general
> >> > > > cases the struct casting could lead to UB. But what has me scratching
> >> > > > my head is that syzbot couldn't reproduce. The cast happens every
> >> > > > time. What about that one time was special? Did the address happen to
> >> > > > fall on the border of a mapping? Is UBSAN non-deterministic as an
> >> > > > optimization? Or is there actually some mysterious UaF happening with
> >> > > > my usage of skbs that I shouldn't overlook?
> >> > >
> >> > > These UBSAN checks were just enabled recently.
> >> > > It's indeed super easy to trigger: 133083 VMs were crashed on this already:
> >> > > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=8f90d005ab2d22342b6d
> >> > > So it's one of the top crashers by now.
> >> >
> >> > Ahh, makes sense. So it is easily reproducible after all.
> >> >
> >> > You're still of the opinion that it's a false positive, right? I
> >> > shouldn't spend more cycles on this?
> >>
> >> No, I am not saying this is a false positive. I think it's an
> >> undefined behavior.
> >>
> >> Either way, we need to resolve this one way or another to unblock
> >> testing the rest of the kernel, if not with a fix to wg, then with a
> >> fix to ubsan, or disable this check for kernel if kernel community
> >> decides we want to use and keep this type of C undefined behavior in
> >> the code base intentionally.
> >> So far I see only 2 "UBSAN: object-size-mismatch" reports on the dashboard:
> >> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/upstream
> >> So cleaning them up looks doable. Is there a way to restructure the
> >> code to not invoke undefined behavior?
> >
> >
> > Right; that's my question as well.
> >
> >>
> >> Kees, do you have any suggestions on how to proceed? This seems to
> >> stop testing of the whole kernel at the moment.
> >
> >
> > If it's blocking other stuff and there isn't a path to fixing it soon, then I think we'll need to disable this check (and open an issue to track it).
>
> Oh, I see, the code is actually in skbuff.h:
>
> static inline void __skb_queue_tail(struct sk_buff_head *list, struct
> sk_buff *newsk)
> {
>     __skb_queue_before(list, (struct sk_buff *)list, newsk);
> }
>
> It casts sk_buff_head to sk_buff relying on equal layout of some
> prefix of these structs.
> Is it really UB in C? UBSAN docs say:
> "An attempt to potentially use bytes which the optimizer can determine
> are not part of the object being accessed".
> But C has POD layout for structs, right? These next/prev fields are
> within sk_buff_head (otherwise things would explode).
> I can imagine this may be not valid in C++, can this UBSAN check be
> C++-specific? Or at least some subset of this check, I can imagine it
> can detect bad bugs in C as well where things go really wrong.
>
> If there is no quick solution proposed, I tend to disable this check
> in syzbot for now. We need to clean at least common things like
> sk_buff first.


FTR, I've disabled the following UBSAN configs:
UBSAN_MISC
UBSAN_DIV_ZERO
UBSAN_BOOL
UBSAN_OBJECT_SIZE
UBSAN_SIGNED_OVERFLOW
UBSAN_UNSIGNED_OVERFLOW
UBSAN_ENUM
UBSAN_ALIGNMENT
UBSAN_UNREACHABLE

Only these are enabled now:
UBSAN_BOUNDS
UBSAN_SHIFT

This is commit:
https://github.com/google/syzkaller/commit/2c1f2513486f21d26b1942ce77ffc782677fbf4e

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Jeffrey Walton]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 12:20 PM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> ...
> FTR, I've disabled the following UBSAN configs:
> UBSAN_MISC
> UBSAN_DIV_ZERO
> UBSAN_BOOL
> UBSAN_OBJECT_SIZE
> UBSAN_SIGNED_OVERFLOW
> UBSAN_UNSIGNED_OVERFLOW
> UBSAN_ENUM
> UBSAN_ALIGNMENT
> UBSAN_UNREACHABLE
>
> Only these are enabled now:
> UBSAN_BOUNDS
> UBSAN_SHIFT
>
> This is commit:
> https://github.com/google/syzkaller/commit/2c1f2513486f21d26b1942ce77ffc782677fbf4e

I think the commit cut too deep.

The overflows are important if folks are building with compilers other than GCC.

The aligned data accesses are important on platforms like MIPS64 and Sparc64.

Object size is important because it catches destination buffer overflows.

I don't know what's in miscellaneous. There may be something useful in there.

Jeff

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Jeffrey Walton]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 12:20 PM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> ...
> FTR, I've disabled the following UBSAN configs:
> UBSAN_MISC
> UBSAN_DIV_ZERO
> UBSAN_BOOL
> UBSAN_OBJECT_SIZE
> UBSAN_SIGNED_OVERFLOW
> UBSAN_UNSIGNED_OVERFLOW
> UBSAN_ENUM
> UBSAN_ALIGNMENT
> UBSAN_UNREACHABLE
>
> Only these are enabled now:
> UBSAN_BOUNDS
> UBSAN_SHIFT
>
> This is commit:
> https://github.com/google/syzkaller/commit/2c1f2513486f21d26b1942ce77ffc782677fbf4e

I think the commit cut too deep.

The overflows are important if folks are building with compilers other than GCC.

The aligned data accesses are important on platforms like MIPS64 and Sparc64.

Object size is important because it catches destination buffer overflows.

I don't know what's in miscellaneous. There may be something useful in there.

Jeff

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Dmitry Vyukov]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 6:35 PM Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 12:20 PM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > FTR, I've disabled the following UBSAN configs:
> > UBSAN_MISC
> > UBSAN_DIV_ZERO
> > UBSAN_BOOL
> > UBSAN_OBJECT_SIZE
> > UBSAN_SIGNED_OVERFLOW
> > UBSAN_UNSIGNED_OVERFLOW
> > UBSAN_ENUM
> > UBSAN_ALIGNMENT
> > UBSAN_UNREACHABLE
> >
> > Only these are enabled now:
> > UBSAN_BOUNDS
> > UBSAN_SHIFT
> >
> > This is commit:
> > https://github.com/google/syzkaller/commit/2c1f2513486f21d26b1942ce77ffc782677fbf4e
>
> I think the commit cut too deep.
>
> The overflows are important if folks are building with compilers other than GCC.
>
> The aligned data accesses are important on platforms like MIPS64 and Sparc64.
>
> Object size is important because it catches destination buffer overflows.
>
> I don't know what's in miscellaneous. There may be something useful in there.

Hi Jeff,

See the commit for reasons why each of these is disabled.
E.g. object size, somebody first needs to fix bugs like this one.
While things like skbuff have these UBs on trivial workloads, there is
no point in involving fuzzing and making it crash on this trivial bug
all the time and stopping doing any other kernel testing as the
result.

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Dmitry Vyukov]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 6:35 PM Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 12:20 PM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > FTR, I've disabled the following UBSAN configs:
> > UBSAN_MISC
> > UBSAN_DIV_ZERO
> > UBSAN_BOOL
> > UBSAN_OBJECT_SIZE
> > UBSAN_SIGNED_OVERFLOW
> > UBSAN_UNSIGNED_OVERFLOW
> > UBSAN_ENUM
> > UBSAN_ALIGNMENT
> > UBSAN_UNREACHABLE
> >
> > Only these are enabled now:
> > UBSAN_BOUNDS
> > UBSAN_SHIFT
> >
> > This is commit:
> > https://github.com/google/syzkaller/commit/2c1f2513486f21d26b1942ce77ffc782677fbf4e
>
> I think the commit cut too deep.
>
> The overflows are important if folks are building with compilers other than GCC.
>
> The aligned data accesses are important on platforms like MIPS64 and Sparc64.
>
> Object size is important because it catches destination buffer overflows.
>
> I don't know what's in miscellaneous. There may be something useful in there.

Hi Jeff,

See the commit for reasons why each of these is disabled.
E.g. object size, somebody first needs to fix bugs like this one.
While things like skbuff have these UBs on trivial workloads, there is
no point in involving fuzzing and making it crash on this trivial bug
all the time and stopping doing any other kernel testing as the
result.

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Jeffrey Walton]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 12:58 PM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 6:35 PM Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 12:20 PM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> > > ...
> > > FTR, I've disabled the following UBSAN configs:
> > > UBSAN_MISC
> > > UBSAN_DIV_ZERO
> > > UBSAN_BOOL
> > > UBSAN_OBJECT_SIZE
> > > UBSAN_SIGNED_OVERFLOW
> > > UBSAN_UNSIGNED_OVERFLOW
> > > UBSAN_ENUM
> > > UBSAN_ALIGNMENT
> > > UBSAN_UNREACHABLE
> > >
> > > Only these are enabled now:
> > > UBSAN_BOUNDS
> > > UBSAN_SHIFT
> > >
> > > This is commit:
> > > https://github.com/google/syzkaller/commit/2c1f2513486f21d26b1942ce77ffc782677fbf4e
> >
> > I think the commit cut too deep.
> >
> > The overflows are important if folks are building with compilers other than GCC.
> >
> > The aligned data accesses are important on platforms like MIPS64 and Sparc64.
> >
> > Object size is important because it catches destination buffer overflows.
> >
> > I don't know what's in miscellaneous. There may be something useful in there.
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> See the commit for reasons why each of these is disabled.
> E.g. object size, somebody first needs to fix bugs like this one.
> While things like skbuff have these UBs on trivial workloads, there is
> no point in involving fuzzing and making it crash on this trivial bug
> all the time and stopping doing any other kernel testing as the
> result.

Going off-topic a bit, what would you suggest for UBSAN_OBJECT_SIZE?

It seems to me object size checking is being conflated with object
type. It seems to me they need to be split: UBSAN_OBJECT_SIZE for
actual object sizes, and UBSAN_OBJECT_TYPE for the casts.

I still have a bitter taste in my mouth from
https://www.cvedetails.com/bugtraq-bid/57602/libupnp-Multiple-Buffer-Overflow-Vulnerabilities.html.
I hate to see buffer checks go away. (And I realize the kernel folks
are more skilled than the guy who wrote libupnp).

Jeff

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Jeffrey Walton]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 12:58 PM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 6:35 PM Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 12:20 PM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> > > ...
> > > FTR, I've disabled the following UBSAN configs:
> > > UBSAN_MISC
> > > UBSAN_DIV_ZERO
> > > UBSAN_BOOL
> > > UBSAN_OBJECT_SIZE
> > > UBSAN_SIGNED_OVERFLOW
> > > UBSAN_UNSIGNED_OVERFLOW
> > > UBSAN_ENUM
> > > UBSAN_ALIGNMENT
> > > UBSAN_UNREACHABLE
> > >
> > > Only these are enabled now:
> > > UBSAN_BOUNDS
> > > UBSAN_SHIFT
> > >
> > > This is commit:
> > > https://github.com/google/syzkaller/commit/2c1f2513486f21d26b1942ce77ffc782677fbf4e
> >
> > I think the commit cut too deep.
> >
> > The overflows are important if folks are building with compilers other than GCC.
> >
> > The aligned data accesses are important on platforms like MIPS64 and Sparc64.
> >
> > Object size is important because it catches destination buffer overflows.
> >
> > I don't know what's in miscellaneous. There may be something useful in there.
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> See the commit for reasons why each of these is disabled.
> E.g. object size, somebody first needs to fix bugs like this one.
> While things like skbuff have these UBs on trivial workloads, there is
> no point in involving fuzzing and making it crash on this trivial bug
> all the time and stopping doing any other kernel testing as the
> result.

Going off-topic a bit, what would you suggest for UBSAN_OBJECT_SIZE?

It seems to me object size checking is being conflated with object
type. It seems to me they need to be split: UBSAN_OBJECT_SIZE for
actual object sizes, and UBSAN_OBJECT_TYPE for the casts.

I still have a bitter taste in my mouth from
https://www.cvedetails.com/bugtraq-bid/57602/libupnp-Multiple-Buffer-Overflow-Vulnerabilities.html.
I hate to see buffer checks go away. (And I realize the kernel folks
are more skilled than the guy who wrote libupnp).

Jeff

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Dmitry Vyukov]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 7:15 PM Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > FTR, I've disabled the following UBSAN configs:
> > > > UBSAN_MISC
> > > > UBSAN_DIV_ZERO
> > > > UBSAN_BOOL
> > > > UBSAN_OBJECT_SIZE
> > > > UBSAN_SIGNED_OVERFLOW
> > > > UBSAN_UNSIGNED_OVERFLOW
> > > > UBSAN_ENUM
> > > > UBSAN_ALIGNMENT
> > > > UBSAN_UNREACHABLE
> > > >
> > > > Only these are enabled now:
> > > > UBSAN_BOUNDS
> > > > UBSAN_SHIFT
> > > >
> > > > This is commit:
> > > > https://github.com/google/syzkaller/commit/2c1f2513486f21d26b1942ce77ffc782677fbf4e
> > >
> > > I think the commit cut too deep.
> > >
> > > The overflows are important if folks are building with compilers other than GCC.
> > >
> > > The aligned data accesses are important on platforms like MIPS64 and Sparc64.
> > >
> > > Object size is important because it catches destination buffer overflows.
> > >
> > > I don't know what's in miscellaneous. There may be something useful in there.
> >
> > Hi Jeff,
> >
> > See the commit for reasons why each of these is disabled.
> > E.g. object size, somebody first needs to fix bugs like this one.
> > While things like skbuff have these UBs on trivial workloads, there is
> > no point in involving fuzzing and making it crash on this trivial bug
> > all the time and stopping doing any other kernel testing as the
> > result.
>
> Going off-topic a bit, what would you suggest for UBSAN_OBJECT_SIZE?
>
> It seems to me object size checking is being conflated with object
> type. It seems to me they need to be split: UBSAN_OBJECT_SIZE for
> actual object sizes, and UBSAN_OBJECT_TYPE for the casts.
>
> I still have a bitter taste in my mouth from
> https://www.cvedetails.com/bugtraq-bid/57602/libupnp-Multiple-Buffer-Overflow-Vulnerabilities.html.
> I hate to see buffer checks go away. (And I realize the kernel folks
> are more skilled than the guy who wrote libupnp).
>
> Jeff

I've filed https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48726 for this. Does
it capture what you are asking? Let's move the discussion re ubsan
there.

However, in the first place I am suggesting fixing the code. E.g. for
sk_buff I would assume it's relatively easily fixable. A
formally legal fix I think should put sk_buff_head into sk_buff and
use it, no downsides and will eliminate the confusing "should go
first" comments.
Or as an workaround maybe we could make __skb_queue_before accept
sk_buff_head and cast the other way around.

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Dmitry Vyukov]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 7:15 PM Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > FTR, I've disabled the following UBSAN configs:
> > > > UBSAN_MISC
> > > > UBSAN_DIV_ZERO
> > > > UBSAN_BOOL
> > > > UBSAN_OBJECT_SIZE
> > > > UBSAN_SIGNED_OVERFLOW
> > > > UBSAN_UNSIGNED_OVERFLOW
> > > > UBSAN_ENUM
> > > > UBSAN_ALIGNMENT
> > > > UBSAN_UNREACHABLE
> > > >
> > > > Only these are enabled now:
> > > > UBSAN_BOUNDS
> > > > UBSAN_SHIFT
> > > >
> > > > This is commit:
> > > > https://github.com/google/syzkaller/commit/2c1f2513486f21d26b1942ce77ffc782677fbf4e
> > >
> > > I think the commit cut too deep.
> > >
> > > The overflows are important if folks are building with compilers other than GCC.
> > >
> > > The aligned data accesses are important on platforms like MIPS64 and Sparc64.
> > >
> > > Object size is important because it catches destination buffer overflows.
> > >
> > > I don't know what's in miscellaneous. There may be something useful in there.
> >
> > Hi Jeff,
> >
> > See the commit for reasons why each of these is disabled.
> > E.g. object size, somebody first needs to fix bugs like this one.
> > While things like skbuff have these UBs on trivial workloads, there is
> > no point in involving fuzzing and making it crash on this trivial bug
> > all the time and stopping doing any other kernel testing as the
> > result.
>
> Going off-topic a bit, what would you suggest for UBSAN_OBJECT_SIZE?
>
> It seems to me object size checking is being conflated with object
> type. It seems to me they need to be split: UBSAN_OBJECT_SIZE for
> actual object sizes, and UBSAN_OBJECT_TYPE for the casts.
>
> I still have a bitter taste in my mouth from
> https://www.cvedetails.com/bugtraq-bid/57602/libupnp-Multiple-Buffer-Overflow-Vulnerabilities.html.
> I hate to see buffer checks go away. (And I realize the kernel folks
> are more skilled than the guy who wrote libupnp).
>
> Jeff

I've filed https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48726 for this. Does
it capture what you are asking? Let's move the discussion re ubsan
there.

However, in the first place I am suggesting fixing the code. E.g. for
sk_buff I would assume it's relatively easily fixable. A
formally legal fix I think should put sk_buff_head into sk_buff and
use it, no downsides and will eliminate the confusing "should go
first" comments.
Or as an workaround maybe we could make __skb_queue_before accept
sk_buff_head and cast the other way around.

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Jeffrey Walton]

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 6:24 AM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 10:14 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> > Hi Jason,
> >
> > Thanks for looking into this.
> >
> > Reading clang docs for ubsan:
> >
> > https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.html
> > -fsanitize=object-size: An attempt to potentially use bytes which the
> > optimizer can determine are not part of the object being accessed.
> > This will also detect some types of undefined behavior that may not
> > directly access memory, but are provably incorrect given the size of
> > the objects involved, such as invalid downcasts and calling methods on
> > invalid pointers. These checks are made in terms of
> > __builtin_object_size, and consequently may be able to detect more
> > problems at higher optimization levels.
> >
> > From skimming though your description this seems to fall into
> > "provably incorrect given the size of the objects involved".
> > I guess it's one of these cases which trigger undefined behavior and
> > compiler can e.g. remove all of this code assuming it will be never
> > called at runtime and any branches leading to it will always branch in
> > other directions, or something.
>
> Right that sort of makes sense, and I can imagine that in more general
> cases the struct casting could lead to UB. But what has me scratching
> my head is that syzbot couldn't reproduce. The cast happens every
> time. What about that one time was special? Did the address happen to
> fall on the border of a mapping? Is UBSAN non-deterministic as an
> optimization? Or is there actually some mysterious UaF happening with
> my usage of skbs that I shouldn't overlook?

The object size checker depends upon compiler analysis. If the
compiler can determine the destination buffer size, then the compiler
can insert a call to a safer function, like a safer memcpy.

If the compiler cannot determine the destination buffer size, then the
compiler will not insert a call to a safer function. (And Wireguard
won't see the crash).

Note... The object size checker and use of safer functions when the
compiler can determine destination buffer sizes is quasi-automatic use
of the safer memory functions from TR 24731-1. They are the ones the
Glibc folks refuse to provide to developers.

Jeff

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Julian Wiedmann]

On 21.12.20 12:23, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
> 

...

> fall on the border of a mapping? Is UBSAN non-deterministic as an
> optimization? Or is there actually some mysterious UaF happening with
> my usage of skbs that I shouldn't overlook?
> 

One oddity is that wg_xmit() returns negative errnos, rather than a
netdev_tx_t (ie. NETDEV_TX_OK or NETDEV_TX_BUSY).

Any chance that the stack mis-interprets one of those custom errnos
as NETDEV_TX_BUSY, and thus believes that it still owns the skb?

> Jason
> 

Re: UBSAN: object-size-mismatch in wg_xmit

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 6:02 PM Julian Wiedmann <jwi@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> On 21.12.20 12:23, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > Hi Dmitry,
> >
>
> ...
>
> > fall on the border of a mapping? Is UBSAN non-deterministic as an
> > optimization? Or is there actually some mysterious UaF happening with
> > my usage of skbs that I shouldn't overlook?
> >
>
> One oddity is that wg_xmit() returns negative errnos, rather than a
> netdev_tx_t (ie. NETDEV_TX_OK or NETDEV_TX_BUSY).
>
> Any chance that the stack mis-interprets one of those custom errnos
> as NETDEV_TX_BUSY, and thus believes that it still owns the skb?

The stack trace shows the splat happening as a result of
__skb_queue_tail, called from wg_xmit, not something that happens
after wg_xmit returns.