lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jan]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 11/12] user_events: Validate user payloads for size and null termination
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 09:08:22AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 09:35:10 -0800
> Beau Belgrave <beaub@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > Add validation to ensure data is at or greater than the min size for the
> > fields of the event. If a dynamic array is used and is a type of char,
> > ensure null termination of the array exists.
>
> OK, looks good to me except a few nitpicks.
>
> Reveiewed-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
>
> I added some comments below.
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Beau Belgrave <beaub@linux.microsoft.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/trace/trace_events_user.c | 147 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 132 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_events_user.c b/kernel/trace/trace_events_user.c
> > index fa3e26281fc3..58b8c9607c80 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_events_user.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_events_user.c
> > @@ -64,9 +64,11 @@ struct user_event {
> > struct dyn_event devent;
> > struct hlist_node node;
> > struct list_head fields;
> > + struct list_head validators;
> > atomic_t refcnt;
> > int index;
> > int flags;
> > + int min_size;
> > };
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -81,8 +83,17 @@ struct user_event_refs {
> > struct user_event *events[];
> > };
> >
> > +#define VALIDATOR_ENSURE_NULL (1 << 0)
> > +#define VALIDATOR_REL (1 << 1)
> > +
> > +struct user_event_validator {
> > + struct list_head link;
> > + int offset;
> > + int flags;
> > +};
> > +
> > typedef void (*user_event_func_t) (struct user_event *user, struct iov_iter *i,
> > - void *tpdata);
> > + void *tpdata, bool *faulted);
>
> Why don't you just return "int" value? ;-)
>

There can be more than one callback attached per-probe, and in all cases
where a return value is needed is for a faulted (or would have faulted)
case. This allows less branches when data is being traced/logged as the
return value does not need to be checked (nor should it short circuit
other probes that are attached).

> >
> > static int user_event_parse(char *name, char *args, char *flags,
> > struct user_event **newuser);
> > @@ -214,6 +225,17 @@ static int user_field_size(const char *type)
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> >

[..]

> > +static int user_event_validate(struct user_event *user, void *data, int len)
> > +{
> > + struct list_head *head = &user->validators;
> > + struct user_event_validator *validator;
> > + void *pos, *end = data + len;
> > + u32 loc, offset, size;
> > +
> > + list_for_each_entry(validator, head, link) {
> > + pos = data + validator->offset;
> > +
> > + /* Already done min_size check, no bounds check here */
> > + loc = *(u32 *)pos;
> > + offset = loc & 0xffff;
> > + size = loc >> 16;
> > +
> > + if (likely(validator->flags & VALIDATOR_REL))
> > + pos += offset + sizeof(loc);
> > + else
> > + pos = data + offset;
> > +
> > + pos += size;
> > +
> > + if (unlikely(pos > end))
> > + return -EFAULT;
> > +
> > + if (likely(validator->flags & VALIDATOR_ENSURE_NULL))
> > + if (unlikely(*(char *)(pos - 1) != 0))
>
> As we discussed in the previous version, isn't it '\0' ?
> (just a style comment)
>

Sure, there are a few dangling around that I missed. I'll fix them.

> > + return -EFAULT;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > /*
> > * Writes the user supplied payload out to a trace file.
> > */
> > static void user_event_ftrace(struct user_event *user, struct iov_iter *i,
> > - void *tpdata)
> > + void *tpdata, bool *faulted)
> > {
> > struct trace_event_file *file;
> > struct trace_entry *entry;
> > struct trace_event_buffer event_buffer;
> > + size_t size = sizeof(*entry) + i->count;
> >
> > file = (struct trace_event_file *)tpdata;
> >
> > @@ -555,19 +648,25 @@ static void user_event_ftrace(struct user_event *user, struct iov_iter *i,
> > return;
> >
> > /* Allocates and fills trace_entry, + 1 of this is data payload */
> > - entry = trace_event_buffer_reserve(&event_buffer, file,
> > - sizeof(*entry) + i->count);
> > + entry = trace_event_buffer_reserve(&event_buffer, file, size);
> >
> > if (unlikely(!entry))
> > return;
> >
> > - if (unlikely(!copy_nofault(entry + 1, i->count, i))) {
> > - __trace_event_discard_commit(event_buffer.buffer,
> > - event_buffer.event);
> > - return;
> > - }
> > + if (unlikely(!copy_nofault(entry + 1, i->count, i)))
> > + goto discard;
>
> OK, this is a fault error.
>
> > +
> > + if (!list_empty(&user->validators) &&
> > + unlikely(user_event_validate(user, entry, size)))
> > + goto discard;
>
> But this maybe an invalid parameter error.
>

Yes, but it has to be an invalid parameter that would have caused a
possible fault in a worse place. In my mind, I still treat it as a fault
case whether the user did it intentionally or not :)

Thanks,
-Beau

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-01-03 19:54    [W:0.066 / U:2.852 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site