From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9764C10F14 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 06:26:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E9EC21D71 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 06:26:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="QqpipN7E" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 2E9EC21D71 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 8B6A06B0005; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 02:26:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 868176B0006; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 02:26:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 72DFC8E0001; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 02:26:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0039.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.39]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AFA46B0005 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 02:26:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin30.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C30EA824CA36 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 06:26:18 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76001488836.30.cat53_8e5c6f1ae254b X-HE-Tag: cat53_8e5c6f1ae254b X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 14735 Received: from mail-qk1-f195.google.com (mail-qk1-f195.google.com [209.85.222.195]) by imf31.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 06:26:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk1-f195.google.com with SMTP id p10so1227532qkg.8 for ; Wed, 02 Oct 2019 23:26:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4nvCkkxF3tpM+x3xn7dqGTYCKi4uqYijHIaCGSNEFak=; b=QqpipN7EMDqzJcJTh0HXH3pImXUAJj1qZxUtb9nADFwf8s/d55LY0oy68TUrGcs7fn zcYsYyVQFp96/OwwO4ywRcEMMNkYPUB8eMweO8PYMkFbw5BO95m7nqyju6BdJ8J7LGlo ytDNCIZChy2QNPXKrtx5jTKZacLX43iZHn15KdjmT5EXfX9ra7njx10fnAg46rW9CvZL tx1GymzkezMBjCSm1Hdq/rN0d2X0+7tWcobDwXsj1VVVJeOdRD49urUnbTlWoqVv6D1X eUb3XERXFZCtP3ZRlogRaRomOUE4KbS8ykVaa/4IOHqOwWHdpPaoCoag6clzi/AFWHAz 6suA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4nvCkkxF3tpM+x3xn7dqGTYCKi4uqYijHIaCGSNEFak=; b=fUepkxyc3k2couI0H1ZGBVPA8FYUKNhxi7i6+B2pBZvyfW1D9k/ZTIuWeDwW8Ret1o aSb26TbKUENPctKUMRfJrpTVFbytJHOKPrSlKusF76BLBQXPTPiUe2ws/hcS9zM1FtN0 ZhfclsqN6LBdx6N5/sQWQ006L5G5rxGnUGwqFfWE0iDNvnRbxmbOpN1vVBqxcLnqhOZB o5Gx7WREZxs7YjTO4SoSsEuZ9O6l3c6qF/DL4Ra9RUDR3jfjFVBxeaAycbUBCzS0KrNH u9xpH2sDPBb7KinYnEX9Ztb4VYRC2QkRcF18TncYvm2igZJZiQ8uy/u5G94rPN0Qjjy6 GckA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWhfEEuVFvBcdc7gQgp94Uua6ZmP+vzDfwO7cz7UeFqMDBPeUpu f4bhdCYXQ0IhOLBG2wAWr4pBnM2YLxn/eLSXsk3EnQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxIREVbBImMq1Sd3hJ0qSIhsSEVDSAmIv+m9Zg7dDKQA3vme42/DHdm+M2/umOtaygTIyLhqF8ypS8tGx9L8ug= X-Received: by 2002:a37:9202:: with SMTP id u2mr2854753qkd.8.1570083977128; Wed, 02 Oct 2019 23:26:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190927034338.15813-1-walter-zh.wu@mediatek.com> <1569594142.9045.24.camel@mtksdccf07> <1569818173.17361.19.camel@mtksdccf07> <1570018513.19702.36.camel@mtksdccf07> <1570069078.19702.57.camel@mtksdccf07> In-Reply-To: <1570069078.19702.57.camel@mtksdccf07> From: Dmitry Vyukov Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 08:26:05 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] kasan: fix the missing underflow in memmove and memcpy with CONFIG_KASAN_GENERIC=y To: Walter Wu Cc: Andrey Ryabinin , Alexander Potapenko , Matthias Brugger , LKML , kasan-dev , Linux-MM , Linux ARM , linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, wsd_upstream Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 4:18 AM Walter Wu wrote: > > On Wed, 2019-10-02 at 15:57 +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 2:15 PM Walter Wu wr= ote: > > > > > > On Mon, 2019-09-30 at 12:36 +0800, Walter Wu wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2019-09-27 at 21:41 +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 4:22 PM Walter Wu wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2019-09-27 at 15:07 +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 5:43 AM Walter Wu wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > memmove() and memcpy() have missing underflow issues. > > > > > > > > When -7 <=3D size < 0, then KASAN will miss to catch the un= derflow issue. > > > > > > > > It looks like shadow start address and shadow end address i= s the same, > > > > > > > > so it does not actually check anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The following test is indeed not caught by KASAN: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > char *p =3D kmalloc(64, GFP_KERNEL); > > > > > > > > memset((char *)p, 0, 64); > > > > > > > > memmove((char *)p, (char *)p + 4, -2); > > > > > > > > kfree((char*)p); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It should be checked here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > void *memmove(void *dest, const void *src, size_t len) > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > check_memory_region((unsigned long)src, len, false,= _RET_IP_); > > > > > > > > check_memory_region((unsigned long)dest, len, true,= _RET_IP_); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > return __memmove(dest, src, len); > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We fix the shadow end address which is calculated, then gen= eric KASAN > > > > > > > > get the right shadow end address and detect this underflow = issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D199341 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Walter Wu > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > lib/test_kasan.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= ++ > > > > > > > > mm/kasan/generic.c | 8 ++++++-- > > > > > > > > 2 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/test_kasan.c b/lib/test_kasan.c > > > > > > > > index b63b367a94e8..8bd014852556 100644 > > > > > > > > --- a/lib/test_kasan.c > > > > > > > > +++ b/lib/test_kasan.c > > > > > > > > @@ -280,6 +280,40 @@ static noinline void __init kmalloc_oo= b_in_memset(void) > > > > > > > > kfree(ptr); > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +static noinline void __init kmalloc_oob_in_memmove_underfl= ow(void) > > > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > > > + char *ptr; > > > > > > > > + size_t size =3D 64; > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > + pr_info("underflow out-of-bounds in memmove\n"); > > > > > > > > + ptr =3D kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL); > > > > > > > > + if (!ptr) { > > > > > > > > + pr_err("Allocation failed\n"); > > > > > > > > + return; > > > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > + memset((char *)ptr, 0, 64); > > > > > > > > + memmove((char *)ptr, (char *)ptr + 4, -2); > > > > > > > > + kfree(ptr); > > > > > > > > +} > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +static noinline void __init kmalloc_oob_in_memmove_overflo= w(void) > > > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > > > + char *ptr; > > > > > > > > + size_t size =3D 64; > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > + pr_info("overflow out-of-bounds in memmove\n"); > > > > > > > > + ptr =3D kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL); > > > > > > > > + if (!ptr) { > > > > > > > > + pr_err("Allocation failed\n"); > > > > > > > > + return; > > > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > + memset((char *)ptr, 0, 64); > > > > > > > > + memmove((char *)ptr + size, (char *)ptr, 2); > > > > > > > > + kfree(ptr); > > > > > > > > +} > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > static noinline void __init kmalloc_uaf(void) > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > char *ptr; > > > > > > > > @@ -734,6 +768,8 @@ static int __init kmalloc_tests_init(vo= id) > > > > > > > > kmalloc_oob_memset_4(); > > > > > > > > kmalloc_oob_memset_8(); > > > > > > > > kmalloc_oob_memset_16(); > > > > > > > > + kmalloc_oob_in_memmove_underflow(); > > > > > > > > + kmalloc_oob_in_memmove_overflow(); > > > > > > > > kmalloc_uaf(); > > > > > > > > kmalloc_uaf_memset(); > > > > > > > > kmalloc_uaf2(); > > > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/kasan/generic.c b/mm/kasan/generic.c > > > > > > > > index 616f9dd82d12..34ca23d59e67 100644 > > > > > > > > --- a/mm/kasan/generic.c > > > > > > > > +++ b/mm/kasan/generic.c > > > > > > > > @@ -131,9 +131,13 @@ static __always_inline bool memory_is_= poisoned_n(unsigned long addr, > > > > > > > > size_t size= ) > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > unsigned long ret; > > > > > > > > + void *shadow_start =3D kasan_mem_to_shadow((void *)= addr); > > > > > > > > + void *shadow_end =3D kasan_mem_to_shadow((void *)ad= dr + size - 1) + 1; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - ret =3D memory_is_nonzero(kasan_mem_to_shadow((void= *)addr), > > > > > > > > - kasan_mem_to_shadow((void *)addr + = size - 1) + 1); > > > > > > > > + if ((long)size < 0) > > > > > > > > + shadow_end =3D kasan_mem_to_shadow((void *)= addr + size); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Walter, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for working on this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If size<0, does it make sense to continue at all? We will sti= ll check > > > > > > > 1PB of shadow memory? What happens when we pass such huge ran= ge to > > > > > > > memory_is_nonzero? > > > > > > > Perhaps it's better to produce an error and bail out immediat= ely if size<0? > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with what you said. when size<0, it is indeed an unreas= onable > > > > > > behavior, it should be blocked from continuing to do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, what's the failure mode of the tests? Didn't they badly= corrupt > > > > > > > memory? We tried to keep tests such that they produce the KAS= AN > > > > > > > reports, but don't badly corrupt memory b/c/ we need to run a= ll of > > > > > > > them. > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe we should first produce KASAN reports and then go to exec= ute > > > > > > memmove() or do nothing? It looks like it=E2=80=99s doing the f= ollowing.or? > > > > > > > > > > > > void *memmove(void *dest, const void *src, size_t len) > > > > > > { > > > > > > + if (long(len) <=3D 0) > > > > > > > > > > /\/\/\/\/\/\ > > > > > > > > > > This check needs to be inside of check_memory_region, otherwise w= e > > > > > will have similar problems in all other places that use > > > > > check_memory_region. > > > > Thanks for your reminder. > > > > > > > > bool check_memory_region(unsigned long addr, size_t size, bool wri= te, > > > > unsigned long ret_ip) > > > > { > > > > + if (long(size) < 0) { > > > > + kasan_report_invalid_size(src, dest, len, _RET_IP_)= ; > > > > + return false; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > return check_memory_region_inline(addr, size, write, ret_ip= ); > > > > } > > > > > > > > > But check_memory_region already returns a bool, so we could check= that > > > > > bool and return early. > > > > > > > > When size<0, we should only show one KASAN report, and should we on= ly > > > > limit to return when size<0 is true? If yse, then __memmove() will = do > > > > nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > void *memmove(void *dest, const void *src, size_t len) > > > > { > > > > - check_memory_region((unsigned long)src, len, false, _RET_IP= _); > > > > + if(!check_memory_region((unsigned long)src, len, false, > > > > _RET_IP_) > > > > + && long(size) < 0) > > > > + return; > > > > + > > > > check_memory_region((unsigned long)dest, len, true, _RET_IP= _); > > > > > > > > return __memmove(dest, src, len); > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Dmitry, > > > > > > What do you think the following code is better than the above one. > > > In memmmove/memset/memcpy, they need to determine whether size < 0 is > > > true. we directly determine whether size is negative in memmove and > > > return early. it avoid to generate repeated KASAN report. Is it bette= r? > > > > > > void *memmove(void *dest, const void *src, size_t len) > > > { > > > + if (long(size) < 0) { > > > + kasan_report_invalid_size(src, dest, len, _RET_IP_); > > > + return; > > > + } > > > + > > > check_memory_region((unsigned long)src, len, false, _RET_IP_)= ; > > > check_memory_region((unsigned long)dest, len, true, _RET_IP_)= ; > > > > > > > > > check_memory_region() still has to check whether the size is negative= . > > > but memmove/memset/memcpy generate invalid size KASAN report will not= be > > > there. > > > > > > If check_memory_region() will do the check, why do we need to > > duplicate it inside of memmove and all other range functions? > > > Yes, I know it has duplication, but if we don't have to determine size<0 > in memmove, then all check_memory_region return false will do nothing, But they will produce a KASAN report, right? They are asked to check if 18446744073709551614 bytes are good. 18446744073709551614 bytes can't be good. > it includes other memory corruption behaviors, this is my original > concern. > > > I would do: > > > > void *memmove(void *dest, const void *src, size_t len) > > { > > if (check_memory_region((unsigned long)src, len, false, _RET_IP= _)) > > return; > if check_memory_region return TRUE is to do nothing, but it is no memory > corruption? Should it return early when check_memory_region return a > FALSE? Maybe. I just meant the overall idea: check_memory_region should detect that 18446744073709551614 bytes are bad, print an error, return an indication that bytes were bad, memmove should return early if the range is bad. > > This avoids duplicating the check, adds minimal amount of code to > > range functions and avoids adding kasan_report_invalid_size. > Thanks for your suggestion. > We originally want to show complete information(destination address, > source address, and its length), but add minimal amount of code into > kasan_report(), it should be good. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups= "kasan-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an= email to kasan-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgi= d/kasan-dev/1570069078.19702.57.camel%40mtksdccf07.