Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-244-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Message-ID: <01e3663e9e1418a183ee86251e0352256494ee28.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] wifi: cfg80211: fix CQM for non-range use
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Jeff Johnson
 <quic_jjohnson@quicinc.com>
Cc: Michael Walle <mwalle@kernel.org>, lkp@intel.com, 
	oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Max Schulze
	 <max.schulze@online.de>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2023 19:40:26 +0100
In-Reply-To: <202311301016.84D0010@keescook>
References: <202311090752.hWcJWAHL-lkp@intel.com>
	 <202311090752.hWcJWAHL-lkp@intel.com>
	 <1c37d99f722f891a50c540853e54d4e36bdf0157.camel@sipsolutions.net>
	 <fc1dbe4a-a810-445c-9398-60a5e55990a2@quicinc.com>
	 <202311301016.84D0010@keescook>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.48.4 (3.48.4-1.fc38) 
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0

On Thu, 2023-11-30 at 10:32 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> Yeah, I would expect this to mean that there is a code path that
> GCC found where the value could overflow. It does this when a variable
> "value range" gets bounded (e.g. an int isn't the full -INT_MAX to INT_MA=
X
> range).And flex_array_size() was designed to saturate at SIZE_MIX rather
> than wrapping around to an unexpected small value, so these are playing
> together it seems.
>=20
> However, I would have expected the kzalloc() to blow up _first_.

Hmm.

> Regardless, I suspect the addition of "if (n_thresholds > 1)" is what is
> tripping GCC.
>=20
>                 int len =3D nla_len(attrs[NL80211_ATTR_CQM_RSSI_THOLD]);
> 		...
>                 return nl80211_set_cqm_rssi(info, thresholds, len / 4,
>                                             hysteresis);
>=20
> Now it "knows" there is a path where n_threasholds could be [2,
> INT_MAX].

Yeah, it's not _really_ bounded, apart from the message length? But then
struct_size() should saturate and fail? But I guess it cannot know that,
and limits the object size to 1<<63 - 1 whereas the copy is 1<<64 - 1...

> Does this warning go away if "len" is made unsigned?

Thing is, neither Kalle nor I can even reproduce the warning locally, so
it's a bit hard to check ... not even with their config and gcc 12.2.0
(nix, rather than debian though.)

> Does adding an upper bounds sanity check help as a work-around, like:

So ... no idea!

I guess I can push something to a branch and see if the robot picks it
up ...

johannes