All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
To: "Sergey Senozhatsky" <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
	"Liam Girdwood" <liam.r.girdwood@linux.intel.com>,
	"Ranjani Sridharan" <ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com>,
	"Kai Vehmanen" <kai.vehmanen@linux.intel.com>,
	"Jaska Uimonen" <jaska.uimonen@linux.intel.com>,
	"Péter Ujfalusi" <peter.ujfalusi@linux.intel.com>
Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.com>, Tomasz Figa <tfiga@chromium.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@chromium.org>,
	sound-open-firmware@alsa-project.org
Subject: Re: out-of-bounds access in sound/soc/sof/topology.c
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 11:00:48 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8eeb08ec-4836-cf7d-2285-8ed74ccfc1cb@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Ylk5o3EC/hyX5UQ0@google.com>

Thanks Sergey for this email.

On 4/15/22 04:23, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm running 5.10.111 LTS, so if this has been fixed already then we definitely
> want to cherry pick the fix for -stable.
> 
> 
> Anonymous union in this struct is of zero size
> 
> /* generic control data */
> struct sof_ipc_ctrl_data {
>         struct sof_ipc_reply rhdr;
>         uint32_t comp_id;
> 
>         /* control access and data type */
>         uint32_t type;          /**< enum sof_ipc_ctrl_type */
>         uint32_t cmd;           /**< enum sof_ipc_ctrl_cmd */
>         uint32_t index;         /**< control index for comps > 1 control */
> 
>         /* control data - can either be appended or DMAed from host */
>         struct sof_ipc_host_buffer buffer;
>         uint32_t num_elems;     /**< in array elems or bytes for data type */
>         uint32_t elems_remaining;       /**< elems remaining if sent in parts */
> 
>         uint32_t msg_index;     /**< for large messages sent in parts */
> 
>         /* reserved for future use */
>         uint32_t reserved[6];
> 
>         /* control data - add new types if needed */
>         union {
>                 /* channel values can be used by volume type controls */
>                 struct sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan chanv[0];
>                 /* component values used by routing controls like mux, mixer */
>                 struct sof_ipc_ctrl_value_comp compv[0];
>                 /* data can be used by binary controls */
>                 struct sof_abi_hdr data[0];
>         };
> } __packed;
> 
> sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan and sof_ipc_ctrl_value_comp are of the same
> size - 8 bytes, while sof_abi_hdr is much larger - _at least_ 32 bytes
> (`__u32 data[0]` in sof_abi_hdr suggest that there should be more
> payload after header). But they all contribute 0 to sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_data).
> 
> Now control data allocations looks as follows
> 
> 	scontrol->size = struct_size(scontrol->control_data, chanv,
> 				     le32_to_cpu(mc->num_channels));
> 	scontrol->control_data = kzalloc(scontrol->size, GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> Which is sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_data) + mc->num_channels * sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan)
> 
> For some reason it uses sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan), which is not
> the largest member of the union.
> 
> And this is where the problem is: in order to make control->data.FOO loads
> and stores legal we need mc->num_channels to be of at least 4. So that
> 
>    sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_data) + mc->num_channels * sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan)
> 
>                 92           +        4         *            8
> 
> will be the same as
> 
>    sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_data) + sizeof(sof_abi_hdr).
> 
>                 92           +           32
> 
> Otherwise scontrol->control_data->data.FOO will access nearby/foreign
> slab object.
> 
> And there is at least one such memory access. In sof_get_control_data().
> 
> 	wdata[i].pdata = wdata[i].control->control_data->data;
> 	*size += wdata[i].pdata->size;
> 
> pdata->size is at offset 8, but if, say, mc->num_channels == 1 then
> we allocate only 8 bytes for pdata, so pdata->size is 4 bytes outside
> of allocated slab object.
> 
> Thoughts?

The SOF contributors who wrote that code are all on an extended Easter week-end or vacation so we'll need more time to provide a definitive answer.

I am far from an expert on the topology, but I note that the 'data' field is only used for binary controls, where we use the maximum possible size for a control, without any arithmetic involving channels. It makes sense to me, the binary data does not have any defined structure, it's just a bunch of bytes provided as is to the firmware.

static int sof_ipc3_control_load_bytes(struct snd_sof_dev *sdev, struct snd_sof_control *scontrol)
{
	struct sof_ipc_ctrl_data *cdata;
	int ret;

	scontrol->ipc_control_data = kzalloc(scontrol->max_size, GFP_KERNEL);
	if (!scontrol->ipc_control_data)
		return -ENOMEM;


In other cases, such as volumes and enums, the 'data' field doesn't seem to be used but we do use the channel information for volume and enums.

static int sof_ipc3_control_load_volume(struct snd_sof_dev *sdev, struct snd_sof_control *scontrol)
{
	struct sof_ipc_ctrl_data *cdata;
	int i;

	/* init the volume get/put data */
	scontrol->size = struct_size(cdata, chanv, scontrol->num_channels);

	scontrol->ipc_control_data = kzalloc(scontrol->size, GFP_KERNEL);


static int sof_ipc3_control_load_enum(struct snd_sof_dev *sdev, struct snd_sof_control *scontrol)
{
	struct sof_ipc_ctrl_data *cdata;

	/* init the enum get/put data */
	scontrol->size = struct_size(cdata, chanv, scontrol->num_channels);

	scontrol->ipc_control_data = kzalloc(scontrol->size, GFP_KERNEL);
	if (!scontrol->ipc_control_data)


Given that we have two ways of allocating the memory, I am not sure there is a problem, but I could be wrong.

I checked the v5.10.111 code and I see the same code, with the max_size being used for sof_control_load_bytes() and no channel-based arithmetic.

Can I ask how you found out about this problem, is this the result of a warning/error reported by a software tool or based on your reviews of the code?

Thanks
-Pierre


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
To: "Sergey Senozhatsky" <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
	"Liam Girdwood" <liam.r.girdwood@linux.intel.com>,
	"Ranjani Sridharan" <ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com>,
	"Kai Vehmanen" <kai.vehmanen@linux.intel.com>,
	"Jaska Uimonen" <jaska.uimonen@linux.intel.com>,
	"Péter Ujfalusi" <peter.ujfalusi@linux.intel.com>
Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tomasz Figa <tfiga@chromium.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@chromium.org>,
	sound-open-firmware@alsa-project.org
Subject: Re: out-of-bounds access in sound/soc/sof/topology.c
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 11:00:48 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8eeb08ec-4836-cf7d-2285-8ed74ccfc1cb@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Ylk5o3EC/hyX5UQ0@google.com>

Thanks Sergey for this email.

On 4/15/22 04:23, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm running 5.10.111 LTS, so if this has been fixed already then we definitely
> want to cherry pick the fix for -stable.
> 
> 
> Anonymous union in this struct is of zero size
> 
> /* generic control data */
> struct sof_ipc_ctrl_data {
>         struct sof_ipc_reply rhdr;
>         uint32_t comp_id;
> 
>         /* control access and data type */
>         uint32_t type;          /**< enum sof_ipc_ctrl_type */
>         uint32_t cmd;           /**< enum sof_ipc_ctrl_cmd */
>         uint32_t index;         /**< control index for comps > 1 control */
> 
>         /* control data - can either be appended or DMAed from host */
>         struct sof_ipc_host_buffer buffer;
>         uint32_t num_elems;     /**< in array elems or bytes for data type */
>         uint32_t elems_remaining;       /**< elems remaining if sent in parts */
> 
>         uint32_t msg_index;     /**< for large messages sent in parts */
> 
>         /* reserved for future use */
>         uint32_t reserved[6];
> 
>         /* control data - add new types if needed */
>         union {
>                 /* channel values can be used by volume type controls */
>                 struct sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan chanv[0];
>                 /* component values used by routing controls like mux, mixer */
>                 struct sof_ipc_ctrl_value_comp compv[0];
>                 /* data can be used by binary controls */
>                 struct sof_abi_hdr data[0];
>         };
> } __packed;
> 
> sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan and sof_ipc_ctrl_value_comp are of the same
> size - 8 bytes, while sof_abi_hdr is much larger - _at least_ 32 bytes
> (`__u32 data[0]` in sof_abi_hdr suggest that there should be more
> payload after header). But they all contribute 0 to sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_data).
> 
> Now control data allocations looks as follows
> 
> 	scontrol->size = struct_size(scontrol->control_data, chanv,
> 				     le32_to_cpu(mc->num_channels));
> 	scontrol->control_data = kzalloc(scontrol->size, GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> Which is sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_data) + mc->num_channels * sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan)
> 
> For some reason it uses sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan), which is not
> the largest member of the union.
> 
> And this is where the problem is: in order to make control->data.FOO loads
> and stores legal we need mc->num_channels to be of at least 4. So that
> 
>    sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_data) + mc->num_channels * sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan)
> 
>                 92           +        4         *            8
> 
> will be the same as
> 
>    sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_data) + sizeof(sof_abi_hdr).
> 
>                 92           +           32
> 
> Otherwise scontrol->control_data->data.FOO will access nearby/foreign
> slab object.
> 
> And there is at least one such memory access. In sof_get_control_data().
> 
> 	wdata[i].pdata = wdata[i].control->control_data->data;
> 	*size += wdata[i].pdata->size;
> 
> pdata->size is at offset 8, but if, say, mc->num_channels == 1 then
> we allocate only 8 bytes for pdata, so pdata->size is 4 bytes outside
> of allocated slab object.
> 
> Thoughts?

The SOF contributors who wrote that code are all on an extended Easter week-end or vacation so we'll need more time to provide a definitive answer.

I am far from an expert on the topology, but I note that the 'data' field is only used for binary controls, where we use the maximum possible size for a control, without any arithmetic involving channels. It makes sense to me, the binary data does not have any defined structure, it's just a bunch of bytes provided as is to the firmware.

static int sof_ipc3_control_load_bytes(struct snd_sof_dev *sdev, struct snd_sof_control *scontrol)
{
	struct sof_ipc_ctrl_data *cdata;
	int ret;

	scontrol->ipc_control_data = kzalloc(scontrol->max_size, GFP_KERNEL);
	if (!scontrol->ipc_control_data)
		return -ENOMEM;


In other cases, such as volumes and enums, the 'data' field doesn't seem to be used but we do use the channel information for volume and enums.

static int sof_ipc3_control_load_volume(struct snd_sof_dev *sdev, struct snd_sof_control *scontrol)
{
	struct sof_ipc_ctrl_data *cdata;
	int i;

	/* init the volume get/put data */
	scontrol->size = struct_size(cdata, chanv, scontrol->num_channels);

	scontrol->ipc_control_data = kzalloc(scontrol->size, GFP_KERNEL);


static int sof_ipc3_control_load_enum(struct snd_sof_dev *sdev, struct snd_sof_control *scontrol)
{
	struct sof_ipc_ctrl_data *cdata;

	/* init the enum get/put data */
	scontrol->size = struct_size(cdata, chanv, scontrol->num_channels);

	scontrol->ipc_control_data = kzalloc(scontrol->size, GFP_KERNEL);
	if (!scontrol->ipc_control_data)


Given that we have two ways of allocating the memory, I am not sure there is a problem, but I could be wrong.

I checked the v5.10.111 code and I see the same code, with the max_size being used for sof_control_load_bytes() and no channel-based arithmetic.

Can I ask how you found out about this problem, is this the result of a warning/error reported by a software tool or based on your reviews of the code?

Thanks
-Pierre


  reply	other threads:[~2022-04-15 16:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-04-15  9:23 out-of-bounds access in sound/soc/sof/topology.c Sergey Senozhatsky
2022-04-15  9:23 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2022-04-15 16:00 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart [this message]
2022-04-15 16:00   ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2022-04-16  1:05   ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2022-04-16  1:05     ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2022-04-19 11:50   ` Péter Ujfalusi
2022-04-19 11:50     ` Péter Ujfalusi
2022-04-19 13:07     ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2022-04-19 13:07       ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2022-04-19 18:04       ` [Sound-open-firmware] " Curtis Malainey
2022-04-19 18:04         ` Curtis Malainey
2022-04-27  6:55       ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2022-04-27  6:55         ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2022-04-27  7:26         ` Péter Ujfalusi
2022-04-27  7:26           ` Péter Ujfalusi
2022-04-19  1:59 ` [Sound-open-firmware] " Curtis Malainey
2022-04-19  1:59   ` Curtis Malainey

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=8eeb08ec-4836-cf7d-2285-8ed74ccfc1cb@linux.intel.com \
    --to=pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=alsa-devel@alsa-project.org \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=jaska.uimonen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=kai.vehmanen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=liam.r.girdwood@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peter.ujfalusi@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=ribalda@chromium.org \
    --cc=senozhatsky@chromium.org \
    --cc=sound-open-firmware@alsa-project.org \
    --cc=tfiga@chromium.org \
    --cc=tiwai@suse.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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.