lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] xen: hypercall: fix out-of-bounds memcpy
On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 12:33 AM, Boris Ostrovsky
<boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
> On 02/02/2018 10:32 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> The legacy hypercall handlers were originally added with
>> a comment explaining that "copying the argument structures in
>> HYPERVISOR_event_channel_op() and HYPERVISOR_physdev_op() into the local
>> variable is sufficiently safe" and only made sure to not write
>> past the end of the argument structure, the checks in linux/string.h
>> disagree with that, when link-time optimizations are used:
>>
>> In function 'memcpy',
>> inlined from 'pirq_query_unmask' at drivers/xen/fallback.c:53:2,
>> inlined from '__startup_pirq' at drivers/xen/events/events_base.c:529:2,
>> inlined from 'restore_pirqs' at drivers/xen/events/events_base.c:1439:3,
>> inlined from 'xen_irq_resume' at drivers/xen/events/events_base.c:1581:2:
>> include/linux/string.h:350:3: error: call to '__read_overflow2' declared with attribute error: detected read beyond size of object passed as 2nd parameter
>> __read_overflow2();
>> ^
>> make[3]: *** [ccLujFNx.ltrans15.ltrans.o] Error 1
>> make[3]: Target 'all' not remade because of errors.
>> lto-wrapper: fatal error: make returned 2 exit status
>> compilation terminated.
>> ld: error: lto-wrapper failed
>>
>> This changes the functions so that each argument is accessed with
>> exactly the correct length based on the command code.
>>
>> Fixes: cf47a83fb06e ("xen/hypercall: fix hypercall fallback code for very old hypervisors")
>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>> ---
>> drivers/xen/fallback.c | 94 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>> 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
>>

>> default:
>> - WARN_ON(rc != -ENOSYS);
>> - break;
>> + return -ENOSYS;
>> }
>>
>> + memcpy(&op.u, arg, len);
>> + rc = _hypercall1(int, event_channel_op_compat, &op);
>> + memcpy(arg, &op.u, len);
>
>
> We don't copy back for all commands, only those that are COPY_BACK.

Not sure what you mean. Is it harmful to copy back the data for the others
in any way? Otherwise I wouldn't micro-optimize this.

Arnd

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-03 16:12    [W:0.096 / U:5.676 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site