From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Len Baker <len.baker@gmx.com>
Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br>,
Mark Gross <mgross@linux.intel.com>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>,
ibm-acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org,
linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: thinkpad_acpi: Prefer struct_size over open coded arithmetic
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 15:46:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ba427967-cb1b-58a8-ec93-bd5ae89f58f8@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202109192246.B438B42EF@keescook>
Hi,
On 9/20/21 7:58 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 05:05:00PM +0200, Len Baker wrote:
>> As noted in the "Deprecated Interfaces, Language Features, Attributes,
>> and Conventions" documentation [1], size calculations (especially
>> multiplication) should not be performed in memory allocator (or similar)
>> function arguments due to the risk of them overflowing. This could lead
>> to values wrapping around and a smaller allocation being made than the
>> caller was expecting. Using those allocations could lead to linear
>> overflows of heap memory and other misbehaviors.
>>
>> So, switch to flexible array member in the struct attribute_set_obj and
>> refactor the code accordingly to use the struct_size() helper instead of
>> the argument "size + count * size" in the kzalloc() function.
>>
>> [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/deprecated.html#open-coded-arithmetic-in-allocator-arguments
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Len Baker <len.baker@gmx.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c | 8 +++-----
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
>> index 50ff04c84650..ed0b01ead796 100644
>> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
>> @@ -1008,7 +1008,7 @@ struct attribute_set {
>>
>> struct attribute_set_obj {
>> struct attribute_set s;
>> - struct attribute *a;
>> + struct attribute *a[];
>> } __attribute__((packed));
>
> Whoa. I have so many questions... :)
>
>>
>> static struct attribute_set *create_attr_set(unsigned int max_members,
>> @@ -1020,13 +1020,11 @@ static struct attribute_set *create_attr_set(unsigned int max_members,
>> return NULL;
>>
>> /* Allocates space for implicit NULL at the end too */
>> - sobj = kzalloc(sizeof(struct attribute_set_obj) +
>> - max_members * sizeof(struct attribute *),
>> - GFP_KERNEL);
>> + sobj = kzalloc(struct_size(sobj, a, max_members + 1), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> Whoa, this needs a lot more detail in the changelog if this is actually
> correct. The original code doesn't seem to match the comment? (Where is
> the +1?) So is this also a bug-fix?
Kees, at first I thought you were spot-on with this comment, but the
truth is more subtle. struct attribute_set_obj was:
struct attribute_set_obj {
struct attribute_set s;
struct attribute *a;
} __attribute__((packed));
Another way of looking at this, which makes things more clear is as:
struct attribute_set_obj {
struct attribute_set s;
struct attribute *a[1];
} __attribute__((packed));
So the sizeof(struct attribute_set_obj) in the original kzalloc call
included room for 1 "extra" pointer which is reserved for the terminating
NULL pointer.
Changing the struct to:
struct attribute_set_obj {
struct attribute_set s;
struct attribute *a[];
} __attribute__((packed));
Is equivalent to changing it to:
struct attribute_set_obj {
struct attribute_set s;
struct attribute *a[0];
} __attribute__((packed));
So the change in the struct declaration reduces the sizeof(struct attribute_set_obj)
by the size of 1 pointer, making the +1 necessary.
So AFAICT there is actually no functional change here.
Still I will hold off merging this until we agree on this :)
> (I see the caller uses +2? Why? It seems to be using each of hotkey_attributes,
> plus 1 more attr, plus a final NULL?)
The +2 is actually for 2 extra attributes (making the total number
of extra attributes +3 because the sizeof(struct attribute_set_obj)
already includes 1 extra).
FWIW these 2 extra attributes are for devices with a
a physical rfkill on/off switch and for the device being
a convertible capable of reporting laptop- vs tablet-mode.
>> if (!sobj)
>> return NULL;
>> sobj->s.max_members = max_members;
>> - sobj->s.group.attrs = &sobj->a;
>> + sobj->s.group.attrs = sobj->a;
>> sobj->s.group.name = name;
>
> The caller also never sets a name?
attribute_group.name may be NULL, I don't know
of (m)any drivers which actual set this to non NULL.
> Why is struct attribute_set_obj marked as __packed?
I have no clue, this seems completely unnecessary.
Len Baker can you submit a separate patch removing the useless
__packed ?
Regards,
Hans
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-21 13:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-18 15:05 [PATCH] platform/x86: thinkpad_acpi: Prefer struct_size over open coded arithmetic Len Baker
2021-09-20 5:58 ` Kees Cook
2021-09-21 13:46 ` Hans de Goede [this message]
2021-09-21 15:15 ` Greg KH
2021-09-21 15:38 ` Hans de Goede
2021-09-21 15:45 ` Greg KH
2021-09-25 10:40 ` Len Baker
2021-09-25 11:07 ` Greg KH
2021-09-25 13:33 ` Len Baker
2021-09-25 10:37 ` Len Baker
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=ba427967-cb1b-58a8-ec93-bd5ae89f58f8@redhat.com \
--to=hdegoede@redhat.com \
--cc=gustavoars@kernel.org \
--cc=hmh@hmh.eng.br \
--cc=ibm-acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=len.baker@gmx.com \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgross@linux.intel.com \
--cc=platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).