Test negative size in memmove in order to verify whether it correctly
get KASAN report.
Casting negative numbers to size_t would indeed turn up as a large
size_t, so it will have out-of-bounds bug and be detected by KASAN.
Signed-off-by: Walter Wu <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Dmitry Vyukov <[email protected]>
---
lib/test_kasan.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
diff --git a/lib/test_kasan.c b/lib/test_kasan.c
index 49cc4d570a40..06942cf585cc 100644
--- a/lib/test_kasan.c
+++ b/lib/test_kasan.c
@@ -283,6 +283,23 @@ static noinline void __init kmalloc_oob_in_memset(void)
kfree(ptr);
}
+static noinline void __init kmalloc_memmove_invalid_size(void)
+{
+ char *ptr;
+ size_t size = 64;
+
+ pr_info("invalid size in memmove\n");
+ ptr = 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_uaf(void)
{
char *ptr;
@@ -773,6 +790,7 @@ static int __init kmalloc_tests_init(void)
kmalloc_oob_memset_4();
kmalloc_oob_memset_8();
kmalloc_oob_memset_16();
+ kmalloc_memmove_invalid_size();
kmalloc_uaf();
kmalloc_uaf_memset();
kmalloc_uaf2();
--
2.18.0
On 11/12/19 9:53 AM, Walter Wu wrote:
> Test negative size in memmove in order to verify whether it correctly
> get KASAN report.
>
> Casting negative numbers to size_t would indeed turn up as a large
> size_t, so it will have out-of-bounds bug and be detected by KASAN.
>
> Signed-off-by: Walter Wu <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Vyukov <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Andrey Ryabinin <[email protected]>
On Fri, 2019-11-22 at 06:21 +0800, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>
> On 11/12/19 9:53 AM, Walter Wu wrote:
> > Test negative size in memmove in order to verify whether it correctly
> > get KASAN report.
> >
> > Casting negative numbers to size_t would indeed turn up as a large
> > size_t, so it will have out-of-bounds bug and be detected by KASAN.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Walter Wu <[email protected]>
> > Reviewed-by: Dmitry Vyukov <[email protected]>
>
> Reviewed-by: Andrey Ryabinin <[email protected]>
Hi Andrey, Dmitry, Andrew,
Would you tell me why this patch-sets don't merge into linux-next tree?
We lost something?
Thanks for your help.
Walter
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 11:43:58 +0800 Walter Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-11-22 at 06:21 +0800, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> >
> > On 11/12/19 9:53 AM, Walter Wu wrote:
> > > Test negative size in memmove in order to verify whether it correctly
> > > get KASAN report.
> > >
> > > Casting negative numbers to size_t would indeed turn up as a large
> > > size_t, so it will have out-of-bounds bug and be detected by KASAN.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Walter Wu <[email protected]>
> > > Reviewed-by: Dmitry Vyukov <[email protected]>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Andrey Ryabinin <[email protected]>
>
> Hi Andrey, Dmitry, Andrew,
>
> Would you tell me why this patch-sets don't merge into linux-next tree?
> We lost something?
>
In response to [1/2] Andrey said "So let's keep this code as this" and
you said "I will send a new v5 patch tomorrow". So we're awaiting a v5
patchset?
On Thu, 2020-01-30 at 18:16 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 11:43:58 +0800 Walter Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2019-11-22 at 06:21 +0800, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> > >
> > > On 11/12/19 9:53 AM, Walter Wu wrote:
> > > > Test negative size in memmove in order to verify whether it correctly
> > > > get KASAN report.
> > > >
> > > > Casting negative numbers to size_t would indeed turn up as a large
> > > > size_t, so it will have out-of-bounds bug and be detected by KASAN.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Walter Wu <[email protected]>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Dmitry Vyukov <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Andrey Ryabinin <[email protected]>
> >
> > Hi Andrey, Dmitry, Andrew,
> >
> > Would you tell me why this patch-sets don't merge into linux-next tree?
> > We lost something?
> >
>
> In response to [1/2] Andrey said "So let's keep this code as this" and
> you said "I will send a new v5 patch tomorrow". So we're awaiting a v5
> patchset?
>
Hi Andrew,
The [1/2] patch discussion shows below. Thanks for Dimitry help to
explain it. So that v4 patchset got Andrey's signature. Because I see
Andrey said "But I see you point now. No objections to the patch in that
case."
@Andrey, if I have an incorrect understanding, please let me know.
Thanks for your help.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/11/21/1019
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/11/21/1020
Walter