lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Aug]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] pstore/ram: Check member of buffers during the initialization phase of the pstore
On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 04:59:07PM +0800, yunlong xing wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 4:10 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 02:04:32PM +0800, Yunlong Xing wrote:
> > > From: Enlin Mu <enlin.mu@unisoc.com>
> > >
> > > The commit 30696378f68a("pstore/ram: Do not treat empty buffers as valid")
> > > would introduce the following issue:
> > >
> > > When finding the buffer_size is zero, it would return directly.However, at
> > > the same time, if the buffer's start is a illegal value, the others would
> > > panic if access the buffer.
> >
> > Which "others" do you mean?
>
> About “others", You can refer to the following panic call stack:
> sysdump_panic_event+0x720/0xd38
> atomic_notifier_call_chain+0x58/0xc0
> panic+0x1c4/0x6e4
> die+0x3c0/0x428
> bug_handler+0x4c/0x9c
> brk_handler+0x98/0x14c
> do_debug_exception+0x114/0x2ec
> el1_dbg+0x18/0xbc
> usercopy_abort+0x90/0x94
> __check_object_size+0x17c/0x2c4
> persistent_ram_update_user+0x50/0x220
> persistent_ram_write_user+0x354/0x428
> ramoops_pstore_write_user+0x34/0x50
> write_pmsg+0x14c/0x26c

I see -- the "start" is corrupted and out of bounds, which leads to
these accesses.

> do_iter_write+0x1cc/0x2cc
> vfs_writev+0xf4/0x168
> do_writev+0xa4/0x200
> __arm64_sys_writev+0x20/0x2c
> el0_svc_common+0xc8/0x22c
> el0_svc_handler+0x1c/0x28
> el0_svc+0x8/0x100
> >
> > > To avoid these happenning, check if the members are legal during the
> > > initialization phase of the pstore.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 30696378f68a ("pstore/ram: Do not treat empty buffers as valid")
> > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > > Signed-off-by: Enlin Mu <enlin.mu@unisoc.com>
> > > ---
> > > fs/pstore/ram_core.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/pstore/ram_core.c b/fs/pstore/ram_core.c
> > > index 85aaf0fc6d7d..eb6df190d752 100644
> > > --- a/fs/pstore/ram_core.c
> > > +++ b/fs/pstore/ram_core.c
> > > @@ -519,7 +519,7 @@ static int persistent_ram_post_init(struct persistent_ram_zone *prz, u32 sig,
> > > sig ^= PERSISTENT_RAM_SIG;
> > >
> > > if (prz->buffer->sig == sig) {
> > > - if (buffer_size(prz) == 0) {
> > > + if (buffer_size(prz) == 0 && buffer_start(prz) == 0) {
> > > pr_debug("found existing empty buffer\n");
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> >
> > And in the case of "buffer_size(prz) == 0" but "buffer_start(prz) != 0",
> > this will be caught by:
> >
> > if (buffer_size(prz) > prz->buffer_size ||
> > buffer_start(prz) > buffer_size(prz)) {
> > pr_info("found existing invalid buffer, size %zu, start %zu\n",
> > buffer_size(prz), buffer_start(prz));
> > zap = true;
> > }
> >
> > i.e. it will be detected and zapped back to a sane state.
> No,This code has no chance of execution because there was a return 0 before it

Right, I meant the behavior with your patch -- with your patch the case
of "size == 0 && start != 0" would be caught by the above check ("start > size")
and zapped back to sanity. (Which is the correct result.)

> >
> > That sounds correct to me, though I wonder if reporting it as an
> > "invalid buffer" is inaccurate? Perhaps we should have a separate case:
> >
> > if (buffer_size(prz) == 0) {
> > if (buffer_start(prz) == 0)
> > pr_debug("found existing empty buffer\n");
> > else {
> > pr_debug("found existing empty buffer with non-zero start\n");
> > zap = true;
> > }
> > } else if ...
> >
> > What do you think?
> Good, I gree it. For me, it should not return directly while finding
> the buffer_size is zero, We need Check others case.

Right. The only question I have is: how did the "start" get corrupted,
and is that a notable condition? Right now we don't (info-level) log
a size==0 prz since that's an expected state for a regular initialized
prz. So maybe your patch is correct as-is since we'd want to report the
"found existing invalid buffer" case.

> So does the modification method you mentioned require me to resubmit a
> patch or do you need to modify and merge it

I think I'll update the commit log and take this as-is. If the logging
becomes too noisy, we can adjust the case later.

Thanks!

--
Kees Cook

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-08-04 18:54    [W:0.056 / U:0.352 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site