Received: by 2002:a25:824b:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id d11csp1658783ybn; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 21:02:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz4B7CcVnJFaGYVWcrhtwLI6w4/FgYARhQ8voC43c4cxVS2sIwMM+nr2QHHa9LgQG1k3wt9 X-Received: by 2002:a50:9e08:: with SMTP id z8mr7504455ede.305.1570075344153; Wed, 02 Oct 2019 21:02:24 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1570075344; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=qGnNsPyN3AFM96rsu1y9vIB9sYSs8ZOeGBi6Le1fZYutkV3+vB/lX24Mxfbe5VGX5p BV9mfO978Ylg91WqBM6tNZAcL49bykU95Z2JRzqoVRhDaLSy6ja1RukDQVkPr7IefMgZ r3yOPUV2AOZl/i+RFPSQx4lE6GRei/+9lqIs9PXf6VHAiMStvqdag8ElxRAUiY74UP6T 9XPEYw6obnsXVv9Etm9Bp40VIAv3Y90QFUZe20DqnSTHd3x8GJ/fXxXlJIfCA5WAsayE pCEjX/h4lPVCXbYQqXEn3GcQvEOfau+pM+8UiRrBlzBIjjWGt5Xo15IUFvFLHWUoQfIQ vsYQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :references:in-reply-to:date:cc:to:from:subject:message-id; bh=0VwpYvHVy59r2j4yReWVIOlIoRqTsF+54N/p2JZqFzM=; b=h14uhMG504RsxS+UzIg50piK1xokGj6rZvwPU0rXlFKrsF2COgmFd+CPh7BeKyKNhn nQ49CHeSIzMiVEjgOWyTSQuAIa2HdHixLed7SKoo7l5Z4ieHK4N5jGoeqX1wkO/uq9Iw E4+pr14LB7H3A9cG4QP+SUy1U0KdoIydYZ9vCqsq3IYZCfpVL0rfr7mz3d6uhrcnm4xi ekl+Z1dBnqSGCziPEHb/8Kdh130v7M+sZJuNGlUtNR57VPESW7hTuV2hMdJurw58cSfa sRVIvWKnduJNI0eoU7idxq2pGw5wzBJL3JA8vk1GGz8pRjCNmVGIdJP2pp3yuhf+RwwZ dkhw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=mediatek.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id z42si714954edz.23.2019.10.02.21.01.59; Wed, 02 Oct 2019 21:02:24 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=mediatek.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727935AbfJCCSF (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 2 Oct 2019 22:18:05 -0400 Received: from mailgw02.mediatek.com ([210.61.82.184]:58010 "EHLO mailgw02.mediatek.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726267AbfJCCSF (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Oct 2019 22:18:05 -0400 X-UUID: 6a934931ebee47a7b59356e638e1e5f6-20191003 X-UUID: 6a934931ebee47a7b59356e638e1e5f6-20191003 Received: from mtkcas08.mediatek.inc [(172.21.101.126)] by mailgw02.mediatek.com (envelope-from ) (Cellopoint E-mail Firewall v4.1.10 Build 0809 with TLS) with ESMTP id 356317875; Thu, 03 Oct 2019 10:18:00 +0800 Received: from mtkcas09.mediatek.inc (172.21.101.178) by mtkmbs07n1.mediatek.inc (172.21.101.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 10:17:59 +0800 Received: from [172.21.84.99] (172.21.84.99) by mtkcas09.mediatek.inc (172.21.101.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 15.0.1395.4 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 10:17:58 +0800 Message-ID: <1570069078.19702.57.camel@mtksdccf07> Subject: Re: [PATCH] kasan: fix the missing underflow in memmove and memcpy with CONFIG_KASAN_GENERIC=y From: Walter Wu To: Dmitry Vyukov CC: Andrey Ryabinin , Alexander Potapenko , Matthias Brugger , LKML , kasan-dev , Linux-MM , Linux ARM , , wsd_upstream Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 10:17:58 +0800 In-Reply-To: References: <20190927034338.15813-1-walter-zh.wu@mediatek.com> <1569594142.9045.24.camel@mtksdccf07> <1569818173.17361.19.camel@mtksdccf07> <1570018513.19702.36.camel@mtksdccf07> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MTK: N Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2019-10-02 at 15:57 +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 2:15 PM Walter Wu wrote: > > > > 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 <= size < 0, then KASAN will miss to catch the underflow issue. > > > > > > > It looks like shadow start address and shadow end address is the same, > > > > > > > so it does not actually check anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The following test is indeed not caught by KASAN: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > char *p = 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 generic KASAN > > > > > > > get the right shadow end address and detect this underflow issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=199341 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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_oob_in_memset(void) > > > > > > > kfree(ptr); > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +static noinline void __init kmalloc_oob_in_memmove_underflow(void) > > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > > + char *ptr; > > > > > > > + size_t size = 64; > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + pr_info("underflow out-of-bounds 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_oob_in_memmove_overflow(void) > > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > > + char *ptr; > > > > > > > + size_t size = 64; > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + pr_info("overflow out-of-bounds in memmove\n"); > > > > > > > + ptr = 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(void) > > > > > > > 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 = kasan_mem_to_shadow((void *)addr); > > > > > > > + void *shadow_end = kasan_mem_to_shadow((void *)addr + size - 1) + 1; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - ret = memory_is_nonzero(kasan_mem_to_shadow((void *)addr), > > > > > > > - kasan_mem_to_shadow((void *)addr + size - 1) + 1); > > > > > > > + if ((long)size < 0) > > > > > > > + shadow_end = 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 still check > > > > > > 1PB of shadow memory? What happens when we pass such huge range to > > > > > > memory_is_nonzero? > > > > > > Perhaps it's better to produce an error and bail out immediately if size<0? > > > > > > > > > > I agree with what you said. when size<0, it is indeed an unreasonable > > > > > 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 KASAN > > > > > > reports, but don't badly corrupt memory b/c/ we need to run all of > > > > > > them. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe we should first produce KASAN reports and then go to execute > > > > > memmove() or do nothing? It looks like it’s doing the following.or? > > > > > > > > > > void *memmove(void *dest, const void *src, size_t len) > > > > > { > > > > > + if (long(len) <= 0) > > > > > > > > /\/\/\/\/\/\ > > > > > > > > This check needs to be inside of check_memory_region, otherwise we > > > > 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 write, > > > 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 only > > > 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 better? > > > > 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, 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? > > 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.