* [RFC] kvm - possible out of bounds
@ 2015-11-29 20:14 ` Geyslan Gregório Bem
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Geyslan Gregório Bem @ 2015-11-29 20:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gleb Natapov, Paolo Bonzini, Alexander Graf,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt, Paul Mackerras, Michael Ellerman, kvm,
kvm-ppc, linuxppc-dev, LKML
Hello,
I have found a possible out of bounds reading in
arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu.c (kvmppc_mmu_book3s_64_xlate
function). pteg[] array could be accessed twice using the i variable
after the for iteration. What happens is that in the last iteration
the i index is incremented to 16, checked (i<16) then confirmed
exiting the loop.
277 for (i=0; i<16; i+=2) { ...
Later there are reading attempts to the pteg last elements, but using
again the already incremented i (16).
303 v = be64_to_cpu(pteg[i]); /* pteg[16] */
304 r = be64_to_cpu(pteg[i+1]); /* pteg[17] */
I really don't know if the for lace will somehow iterate until i is
16, anyway I think that the last readings must be using a defined max
len/index or another more clear method.
Eg.
v = be64_to_cpu(pteg[PTEG_LEN - 2]);
r = be64_to_cpu(pteg[PTEG_LEN - 1]);
Or just.
v = be64_to_cpu(pteg[14]);
r = be64_to_cpu(pteg[15]);
----------------------------
I found in the same file a variable that is not used.
380 struct kvmppc_vcpu_book3s *vcpu_book3s;
...
387 vcpu_book3s = to_book3s(vcpu);
-----------------------------
A question, the kvmppc_mmu_book3s_64_init function is accessed by
unconventional way? Because I have not found any calling to it.
If something that I wrote is correct please tell me if I could send the patch.
--
Regards,
Geyslan G. Bem
hackingbits.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [RFC] kvm - possible out of bounds
@ 2015-11-29 20:14 ` Geyslan Gregório Bem
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Geyslan Gregório Bem @ 2015-11-29 20:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gleb Natapov, Paolo Bonzini, Alexander Graf,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt, Paul Mackerras, Michael Ellerman, kvm,
kvm-ppc, linuxppc-dev, LKML
Hello,
I have found a possible out of bounds reading in
arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu.c (kvmppc_mmu_book3s_64_xlate
function). pteg[] array could be accessed twice using the i variable
after the for iteration. What happens is that in the last iteration
the i index is incremented to 16, checked (i<16) then confirmed
exiting the loop.
277 for (i=0; i<16; i+=2) { ...
Later there are reading attempts to the pteg last elements, but using
again the already incremented i (16).
303 v = be64_to_cpu(pteg[i]); /* pteg[16] */
304 r = be64_to_cpu(pteg[i+1]); /* pteg[17] */
I really don't know if the for lace will somehow iterate until i is
16, anyway I think that the last readings must be using a defined max
len/index or another more clear method.
Eg.
v = be64_to_cpu(pteg[PTEG_LEN - 2]);
r = be64_to_cpu(pteg[PTEG_LEN - 1]);
Or just.
v = be64_to_cpu(pteg[14]);
r = be64_to_cpu(pteg[15]);
----------------------------
I found in the same file a variable that is not used.
380 struct kvmppc_vcpu_book3s *vcpu_book3s;
...
387 vcpu_book3s = to_book3s(vcpu);
-----------------------------
A question, the kvmppc_mmu_book3s_64_init function is accessed by
unconventional way? Because I have not found any calling to it.
If something that I wrote is correct please tell me if I could send the patch.
--
Regards,
Geyslan G. Bem
hackingbits.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] kvm - possible out of bounds
2015-11-29 20:14 ` Geyslan Gregório Bem
@ 2015-11-29 21:33 ` Paul Mackerras
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Paul Mackerras @ 2015-11-29 21:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Geyslan Gregório Bem
Cc: Gleb Natapov, Paolo Bonzini, Alexander Graf,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt, Michael Ellerman, kvm, kvm-ppc,
linuxppc-dev, LKML
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 05:14:03PM -0300, Geyslan Gregório Bem wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have found a possible out of bounds reading in
> arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu.c (kvmppc_mmu_book3s_64_xlate
> function). pteg[] array could be accessed twice using the i variable
> after the for iteration. What happens is that in the last iteration
> the i index is incremented to 16, checked (i<16) then confirmed
> exiting the loop.
>
> 277 for (i=0; i<16; i+=2) { ...
>
> Later there are reading attempts to the pteg last elements, but using
> again the already incremented i (16).
>
> 303 v = be64_to_cpu(pteg[i]); /* pteg[16] */
> 304 r = be64_to_cpu(pteg[i+1]); /* pteg[17] */
Was it some automated tool that came up with this?
There is actually no problem because the accesses outside the loop are
only done if the 'found' variable is true; 'found' is initialized to
false and only ever set to true inside the loop just before a break
statement. Thus there is a correlation between the value of 'i' and
the value of 'found' -- if 'found' is true then we know 'i' is less
than 16.
> I really don't know if the for lace will somehow iterate until i is
> 16, anyway I think that the last readings must be using a defined max
> len/index or another more clear method.
I think it's perfectly clear to a human programmer, though some tools
(such as gcc) struggle with this kind of correlation between
variables. That's why I asked whether your report was based on the
output from some tool.
> Eg.
>
> v = be64_to_cpu(pteg[PTEG_LEN - 2]);
> r = be64_to_cpu(pteg[PTEG_LEN - 1]);
>
> Or just.
>
> v = be64_to_cpu(pteg[14]);
> r = be64_to_cpu(pteg[15]);
Either of those options would cause the code to malfunction.
> I found in the same file a variable that is not used.
>
> 380 struct kvmppc_vcpu_book3s *vcpu_book3s;
> ...
> 387 vcpu_book3s = to_book3s(vcpu);
True. It could be removed.
> A question, the kvmppc_mmu_book3s_64_init function is accessed by
> unconventional way? Because I have not found any calling to it.
Try arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_pr.c line 410:
kvmppc_mmu_book3s_64_init(vcpu);
Grep (or git grep) is your friend.
Paul.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] kvm - possible out of bounds
@ 2015-11-29 21:33 ` Paul Mackerras
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Paul Mackerras @ 2015-11-29 21:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Geyslan Gregório Bem
Cc: Gleb Natapov, Paolo Bonzini, Alexander Graf,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt, Michael Ellerman, kvm, kvm-ppc,
linuxppc-dev, LKML
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 05:14:03PM -0300, Geyslan Gregório Bem wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have found a possible out of bounds reading in
> arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu.c (kvmppc_mmu_book3s_64_xlate
> function). pteg[] array could be accessed twice using the i variable
> after the for iteration. What happens is that in the last iteration
> the i index is incremented to 16, checked (i<16) then confirmed
> exiting the loop.
>
> 277 for (i=0; i<16; i+=2) { ...
>
> Later there are reading attempts to the pteg last elements, but using
> again the already incremented i (16).
>
> 303 v = be64_to_cpu(pteg[i]); /* pteg[16] */
> 304 r = be64_to_cpu(pteg[i+1]); /* pteg[17] */
Was it some automated tool that came up with this?
There is actually no problem because the accesses outside the loop are
only done if the 'found' variable is true; 'found' is initialized to
false and only ever set to true inside the loop just before a break
statement. Thus there is a correlation between the value of 'i' and
the value of 'found' -- if 'found' is true then we know 'i' is less
than 16.
> I really don't know if the for lace will somehow iterate until i is
> 16, anyway I think that the last readings must be using a defined max
> len/index or another more clear method.
I think it's perfectly clear to a human programmer, though some tools
(such as gcc) struggle with this kind of correlation between
variables. That's why I asked whether your report was based on the
output from some tool.
> Eg.
>
> v = be64_to_cpu(pteg[PTEG_LEN - 2]);
> r = be64_to_cpu(pteg[PTEG_LEN - 1]);
>
> Or just.
>
> v = be64_to_cpu(pteg[14]);
> r = be64_to_cpu(pteg[15]);
Either of those options would cause the code to malfunction.
> I found in the same file a variable that is not used.
>
> 380 struct kvmppc_vcpu_book3s *vcpu_book3s;
> ...
> 387 vcpu_book3s = to_book3s(vcpu);
True. It could be removed.
> A question, the kvmppc_mmu_book3s_64_init function is accessed by
> unconventional way? Because I have not found any calling to it.
Try arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_pr.c line 410:
kvmppc_mmu_book3s_64_init(vcpu);
Grep (or git grep) is your friend.
Paul.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] kvm - possible out of bounds
2015-11-29 21:33 ` Paul Mackerras
(?)
@ 2015-11-29 22:05 ` Geyslan Gregório Bem
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Geyslan Gregório Bem @ 2015-11-29 22:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Mackerras
Cc: Gleb Natapov, Paolo Bonzini, Alexander Graf,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt, Michael Ellerman, kvm, kvm-ppc,
linuxppc-dev, LKML
2015-11-29 18:33 GMT-03:00 Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 05:14:03PM -0300, Geyslan Gregório Bem wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have found a possible out of bounds reading in
>> arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu.c (kvmppc_mmu_book3s_64_xlate
>> function). pteg[] array could be accessed twice using the i variable
>> after the for iteration. What happens is that in the last iteration
>> the i index is incremented to 16, checked (i<16) then confirmed
>> exiting the loop.
>>
>> 277 for (i=0; i<16; i+=2) { ...
>>
>> Later there are reading attempts to the pteg last elements, but using
>> again the already incremented i (16).
>>
>> 303 v = be64_to_cpu(pteg[i]); /* pteg[16] */
>> 304 r = be64_to_cpu(pteg[i+1]); /* pteg[17] */
>
> Was it some automated tool that came up with this?
Yep, cppcheck. As I'm still not engaged to a specific area in the
kernel, just trying to help with automated catches.
>
> There is actually no problem because the accesses outside the loop are
> only done if the 'found' variable is true; 'found' is initialized to
> false and only ever set to true inside the loop just before a break
> statement. Thus there is a correlation between the value of 'i' and
> the value of 'found' -- if 'found' is true then we know 'i' is less
> than 16.
I figured it out after your explanation.
>
>> I really don't know if the for lace will somehow iterate until i is
>> 16, anyway I think that the last readings must be using a defined max
>> len/index or another more clear method.
>
> I think it's perfectly clear to a human programmer, though some tools
> (such as gcc) struggle with this kind of correlation between
> variables. That's why I asked whether your report was based on the
> output from some tool.
>
>> Eg.
>>
>> v = be64_to_cpu(pteg[PTEG_LEN - 2]);
>> r = be64_to_cpu(pteg[PTEG_LEN - 1]);
>>
>> Or just.
>>
>> v = be64_to_cpu(pteg[14]);
>> r = be64_to_cpu(pteg[15]);
>
> Either of those options would cause the code to malfunction.
Yep, I understand now that v and r get the found ones. So i is needed.
>
>> I found in the same file a variable that is not used.
>>
>> 380 struct kvmppc_vcpu_book3s *vcpu_book3s;
>> ...
>> 387 vcpu_book3s = to_book3s(vcpu);
>
> True. It could be removed.
I'll make a patch for that.
>
>> A question, the kvmppc_mmu_book3s_64_init function is accessed by
>> unconventional way? Because I have not found any calling to it.
>
> Try arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_pr.c line 410:
>
> kvmppc_mmu_book3s_64_init(vcpu);
>
> Grep (or git grep) is your friend.
Hmm, indeed.
>
> Paul.
Thank you, Paul. If you have some other changes in progress let me know.
--
Regards,
Geyslan G. Bem
hackingbits.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] kvm - possible out of bounds
@ 2015-11-29 22:05 ` Geyslan Gregório Bem
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Geyslan Gregório Bem @ 2015-11-29 22:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Mackerras
Cc: Gleb Natapov, Paolo Bonzini, Alexander Graf,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt, Michael Ellerman, kvm, kvm-ppc,
linuxppc-dev, LKML
2015-11-29 18:33 GMT-03:00 Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 05:14:03PM -0300, Geyslan Greg=C3=B3rio Bem wrote=
:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have found a possible out of bounds reading in
>> arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu.c (kvmppc_mmu_book3s_64_xlate
>> function). pteg[] array could be accessed twice using the i variable
>> after the for iteration. What happens is that in the last iteration
>> the i index is incremented to 16, checked (i<16) then confirmed
>> exiting the loop.
>>
>> 277 for (i=3D0; i<16; i+=3D2) { ...
>>
>> Later there are reading attempts to the pteg last elements, but using
>> again the already incremented i (16).
>>
>> 303 v =3D be64_to_cpu(pteg[i]); /* pteg[16] */
>> 304 r =3D be64_to_cpu(pteg[i+1]); /* pteg[17] */
>
> Was it some automated tool that came up with this?
Yep, cppcheck. As I'm still not engaged to a specific area in the
kernel, just trying to help with automated catches.
>
> There is actually no problem because the accesses outside the loop are
> only done if the 'found' variable is true; 'found' is initialized to
> false and only ever set to true inside the loop just before a break
> statement. Thus there is a correlation between the value of 'i' and
> the value of 'found' -- if 'found' is true then we know 'i' is less
> than 16.
I figured it out after your explanation.
>
>> I really don't know if the for lace will somehow iterate until i is
>> 16, anyway I think that the last readings must be using a defined max
>> len/index or another more clear method.
>
> I think it's perfectly clear to a human programmer, though some tools
> (such as gcc) struggle with this kind of correlation between
> variables. That's why I asked whether your report was based on the
> output from some tool.
>
>> Eg.
>>
>> v =3D be64_to_cpu(pteg[PTEG_LEN - 2]);
>> r =3D be64_to_cpu(pteg[PTEG_LEN - 1]);
>>
>> Or just.
>>
>> v =3D be64_to_cpu(pteg[14]);
>> r =3D be64_to_cpu(pteg[15]);
>
> Either of those options would cause the code to malfunction.
Yep, I understand now that v and r get the found ones. So i is needed.
>
>> I found in the same file a variable that is not used.
>>
>> 380 struct kvmppc_vcpu_book3s *vcpu_book3s;
>> ...
>> 387 vcpu_book3s =3D to_book3s(vcpu);
>
> True. It could be removed.
I'll make a patch for that.
>
>> A question, the kvmppc_mmu_book3s_64_init function is accessed by
>> unconventional way? Because I have not found any calling to it.
>
> Try arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_pr.c line 410:
>
> kvmppc_mmu_book3s_64_init(vcpu);
>
> Grep (or git grep) is your friend.
Hmm, indeed.
>
> Paul.
Thank you, Paul. If you have some other changes in progress let me know.
--=20
Regards,
Geyslan G. Bem
hackingbits.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] kvm - possible out of bounds
@ 2015-11-29 22:05 ` Geyslan Gregório Bem
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Geyslan Gregório Bem @ 2015-11-29 22:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Mackerras
Cc: Gleb Natapov, Paolo Bonzini, Alexander Graf,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt, Michael Ellerman, kvm, kvm-ppc,
linuxppc-dev, LKML
2015-11-29 18:33 GMT-03:00 Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 05:14:03PM -0300, Geyslan Gregório Bem wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have found a possible out of bounds reading in
>> arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu.c (kvmppc_mmu_book3s_64_xlate
>> function). pteg[] array could be accessed twice using the i variable
>> after the for iteration. What happens is that in the last iteration
>> the i index is incremented to 16, checked (i<16) then confirmed
>> exiting the loop.
>>
>> 277 for (i=0; i<16; i+=2) { ...
>>
>> Later there are reading attempts to the pteg last elements, but using
>> again the already incremented i (16).
>>
>> 303 v = be64_to_cpu(pteg[i]); /* pteg[16] */
>> 304 r = be64_to_cpu(pteg[i+1]); /* pteg[17] */
>
> Was it some automated tool that came up with this?
Yep, cppcheck. As I'm still not engaged to a specific area in the
kernel, just trying to help with automated catches.
>
> There is actually no problem because the accesses outside the loop are
> only done if the 'found' variable is true; 'found' is initialized to
> false and only ever set to true inside the loop just before a break
> statement. Thus there is a correlation between the value of 'i' and
> the value of 'found' -- if 'found' is true then we know 'i' is less
> than 16.
I figured it out after your explanation.
>
>> I really don't know if the for lace will somehow iterate until i is
>> 16, anyway I think that the last readings must be using a defined max
>> len/index or another more clear method.
>
> I think it's perfectly clear to a human programmer, though some tools
> (such as gcc) struggle with this kind of correlation between
> variables. That's why I asked whether your report was based on the
> output from some tool.
>
>> Eg.
>>
>> v = be64_to_cpu(pteg[PTEG_LEN - 2]);
>> r = be64_to_cpu(pteg[PTEG_LEN - 1]);
>>
>> Or just.
>>
>> v = be64_to_cpu(pteg[14]);
>> r = be64_to_cpu(pteg[15]);
>
> Either of those options would cause the code to malfunction.
Yep, I understand now that v and r get the found ones. So i is needed.
>
>> I found in the same file a variable that is not used.
>>
>> 380 struct kvmppc_vcpu_book3s *vcpu_book3s;
>> ...
>> 387 vcpu_book3s = to_book3s(vcpu);
>
> True. It could be removed.
I'll make a patch for that.
>
>> A question, the kvmppc_mmu_book3s_64_init function is accessed by
>> unconventional way? Because I have not found any calling to it.
>
> Try arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_pr.c line 410:
>
> kvmppc_mmu_book3s_64_init(vcpu);
>
> Grep (or git grep) is your friend.
Hmm, indeed.
>
> Paul.
Thank you, Paul. If you have some other changes in progress let me know.
--
Regards,
Geyslan G. Bem
hackingbits.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-11-29 22:06 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-11-29 20:14 [RFC] kvm - possible out of bounds Geyslan Gregório Bem
2015-11-29 20:14 ` Geyslan Gregório Bem
2015-11-29 21:33 ` Paul Mackerras
2015-11-29 21:33 ` Paul Mackerras
2015-11-29 22:05 ` Geyslan Gregório Bem
2015-11-29 22:05 ` Geyslan Gregório Bem
2015-11-29 22:05 ` Geyslan Gregório Bem
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.