lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Dec]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: usb: f_fs: Fix CFI failure in ki_complete
From


On 14-12-22 11:05 pm, David Laight wrote:
> From: Greg Kroah-Hartman
>> Sent: 12 December 2022 13:35
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 06:54:24PM +0530, Prashanth K wrote:
>>> Function pointer ki_complete() expects 'long' as its second
>>> argument, but we pass integer from ffs_user_copy_worker. This
>>> might cause a CFI failure, as ki_complete is an indirect call
>>> with mismatched prototype. Fix this by typecasting the second
>>> argument to long.
>>
>> "might"? Does it or not? If it does, why hasn't this been reported
>> before?
>
> Does the cast even help at all.
Actually I also have these same questions
- why we haven't seen any instances other than this one?
- why its not seen on other indirect function calls?

Here is the the call stack of the failure that we got.

[ 323.288681][ T7] Kernel panic - not syncing: CFI failure (target:
0xffffffe5fc811f98)
[ 323.288710][ T7] CPU: 6 PID: 7 Comm: kworker/u16:0 Tainted: G S
W OE 5.15.41-android13-8-g5ffc5644bd20 #1
[ 323.288730][ T7] Workqueue: adb ffs_user_copy_worker.cfi_jt
[ 323.288752][ T7] Call trace:
[ 323.288755][ T7] dump_backtrace.cfi_jt+0x0/0x8
[ 323.288772][ T7] dump_stack_lvl+0x80/0xb8
[ 323.288785][ T7] panic+0x180/0x444
[ 323.288797][ T7] find_check_fn+0x0/0x218
[ 323.288810][ T7] ffs_user_copy_worker+0x1dc/0x204
[ 323.288822][ T7] kretprobe_trampoline.cfi_jt+0x0/0x8
[ 323.288837][ T7] worker_thread+0x3ec/0x920
[ 323.288850][ T7] kthread+0x168/0x1dc
[ 323.288859][ T7] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
[ 323.288866][ T7] SMP: stopping secondary CPUs

And from address to line translation, we got know the issue is from
ffs_user_copy_worker+0x1dc/0x204
||
io_data->kiocb->ki_complete(io_data->kiocb, ret);

And "find_check_fn" was getting invoked from ki_complete. Only thing
that I found suspicious about ki_complete() is its argument types.
That's why I pushed this patch here, so that we can discuss this out here.

Thanks in advance

>
> ...
>>> - io_data->kiocb->ki_complete(io_data->kiocb, ret);
>>> + io_data->kiocb->ki_complete(io_data->kiocb, (long)ret);
> ...
>
> If definition of the parameter in the structure member ki_complete()
> definition is 'long' then the compiler has to promote 'ret' to long
> anyway. CFI has nothing to do with it.
>
> OTOH if you've used a cast to assign a function with a
> different prototype to ki_complete then 'all bets are off'
> and you get all the run time errors you deserve.
> CFI just converts some of them to compile time errors.
>
> For instance if you assign xx_complete(long) to (*ki_complete)(int)
> then it is very likely that xx_complete() will an argument
> with some of the high bits set.
> But adding a cast to the call - ki_complete((long)int_var)
> will make absolutely no difference.
> The compiler wont zero/sign extend int_var to 64bits for you,
> that will just get optimised away and the high bits will
> be unchanged.
>
> You're description seems to be the other way around (which might
> be safe, but CFI probably still barfs).
> But you need to fix the indirect calls so the function types
> match.
So does that mean, we need to add casts in al indirect calls to match
the function signature?
>
> David
>
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-26 23:17    [W:0.086 / U:0.904 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site