The array_index_nospec() check in io_sq_offload_start() is performed
before any checks on p->sq_thread_cpu are done. This means cpu is
clamped and therefore no error occurs when out-of-range values are
passed in from userspace. This is in violation of the specification
for io_ring_setup() and causes the io_ring_setup unit test in liburing
to regress.
Add a new bounds check on sq_thread_cpu at the start of
io_sq_offload_start() so we can exit the function early when bad
values are passed in.
Fixes: 975554b03edd ("io_uring: fix SQPOLL cpu validation")
Signed-off-by: Stephen Bates <[email protected]>
---
fs/io_uring.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
index 30a5687..e458470 100644
--- a/fs/io_uring.c
+++ b/fs/io_uring.c
@@ -2316,6 +2316,9 @@ static int io_sq_offload_start(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
{
int ret;
+ if (p->sq_thread_cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
init_waitqueue_head(&ctx->sqo_wait);
mmgrab(current->mm);
ctx->sqo_mm = current->mm;
--
2.7.4
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:56:06PM +0000, Stephen Bates wrote:
> The array_index_nospec() check in io_sq_offload_start() is performed
> before any checks on p->sq_thread_cpu are done. This means cpu is
> clamped and therefore no error occurs when out-of-range values are
> passed in from userspace. This is in violation of the specification
> for io_ring_setup() and causes the io_ring_setup unit test in liburing
> to regress.
>
> Add a new bounds check on sq_thread_cpu at the start of
> io_sq_offload_start() so we can exit the function early when bad
> values are passed in.
>
> Fixes: 975554b03edd ("io_uring: fix SQPOLL cpu validation")
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Bates <[email protected]>
Aargh. My original patch [1] handled that correctly, and this case was
explicitly called out in the commit message, which was retained even
when the patch was "simplified". That's rather disappointing. :/
Thanks,
Mark.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> ---
> fs/io_uring.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
> index 30a5687..e458470 100644
> --- a/fs/io_uring.c
> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
> @@ -2316,6 +2316,9 @@ static int io_sq_offload_start(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
> {
> int ret;
>
> + if (p->sq_thread_cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> init_waitqueue_head(&ctx->sqo_wait);
> mmgrab(current->mm);
> ctx->sqo_mm = current->mm;
> --
> 2.7.4
>
> Aargh. My original patch [1] handled that correctly, and this case was
> explicitly called out in the commit message, which was retained even
> when the patch was "simplified". That's rather disappointing. :/
It looks like Jens did a fix for this (44a9bd18a0f06bba
" io_uring: fix failure to verify SQ_AFF cpu") which is in the 5.2-rc series
but which hasn’t been applied to the stable series yet. I am not sure how
I missed that but it makes my patch redundant.
Jens, will 44a9bd18a0f06bba be applied to stable kernels?
Stephen
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 02:54:45AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 6/12/19 3:47 AM, Stephen Bates wrote:
> >> Aargh. My original patch [1] handled that correctly, and this case was
> >> explicitly called out in the commit message, which was retained even
> >> when the patch was "simplified". That's rather disappointing. :/
> >
> > It looks like Jens did a fix for this (44a9bd18a0f06bba
> > " io_uring: fix failure to verify SQ_AFF cpu") which is in the 5.2-rc series
> > but which hasn’t been applied to the stable series yet. I am not sure how
> > I missed that but it makes my patch redundant.
> >
> > Jens, will 44a9bd18a0f06bba be applied to stable kernels?
>
> Yes, we can get it flagged for stable. Greg, can you pull in the above
> commit for 5.1 stable?
Now snuck in for the next 5.1.y release, thanks.
greg k-h
On 6/13/19 3:14 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 02:54:45AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 6/12/19 3:47 AM, Stephen Bates wrote:
>>>> Aargh. My original patch [1] handled that correctly, and this case was
>>>> explicitly called out in the commit message, which was retained even
>>>> when the patch was "simplified". That's rather disappointing. :/
>>>
>>> It looks like Jens did a fix for this (44a9bd18a0f06bba
>>> " io_uring: fix failure to verify SQ_AFF cpu") which is in the 5.2-rc series
>>> but which hasn’t been applied to the stable series yet. I am not sure how
>>> I missed that but it makes my patch redundant.
>>>
>>> Jens, will 44a9bd18a0f06bba be applied to stable kernels?
>>
>> Yes, we can get it flagged for stable. Greg, can you pull in the above
>> commit for 5.1 stable?
>
> Now snuck in for the next 5.1.y release, thanks.
Thanks Greg!
--
Jens Axboe
On 6/12/19 3:47 AM, Stephen Bates wrote:
>> Aargh. My original patch [1] handled that correctly, and this case was
>> explicitly called out in the commit message, which was retained even
>> when the patch was "simplified". That's rather disappointing. :/
>
> It looks like Jens did a fix for this (44a9bd18a0f06bba
> " io_uring: fix failure to verify SQ_AFF cpu") which is in the 5.2-rc series
> but which hasn’t been applied to the stable series yet. I am not sure how
> I missed that but it makes my patch redundant.
>
> Jens, will 44a9bd18a0f06bba be applied to stable kernels?
Yes, we can get it flagged for stable. Greg, can you pull in the above
commit for 5.1 stable?
--
Jens Axboe