commit e1be43d9b5d0d1310dbd90185a8e5c7145dde40f upstream.
In order to perform more open-coded replacements of common allocation
size arithmetic, the kernel needs saturating (SIZE_MAX) helpers for
multiplication, addition, and subtraction. For example, it is common in
allocators, especially on realloc, to add to an existing size:
p = krealloc(map->patch,
sizeof(struct reg_sequence) * (map->patch_regs + num_regs),
GFP_KERNEL);
There is no existing saturating replacement for this calculation, and
just leaving the addition open coded inside array_size() could
potentially overflow as well. For example, an overflow in an expression
for a size_t argument might wrap to zero:
array_size(anything, something_at_size_max + 1) == 0
Introduce size_mul(), size_add(), and size_sub() helpers that
implicitly promote arguments to size_t and saturated calculations for
use in allocations. With these helpers it is also possible to redefine
array_size(), array3_size(), flex_array_size(), and struct_size() in
terms of the new helpers.
As with the check_*_overflow() helpers, the new helpers use __must_check,
though what is really desired is a way to make sure that assignment is
only to a size_t lvalue. Without this, it's still possible to introduce
overflow/underflow via type conversion (i.e. from size_t to int).
Enforcing this will currently need to be left to static analysis or
future use of -Wconversion.
Additionally update the overflow unit tests to force runtime evaluation
for the pathological cases.
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Cc: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
Cc: Len Baker <len.baker@gmx.com>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
(cherry picked from commit 1f5cbd78177975aece64bb132948f611af2359c0)
[Vegard: remove changes to lib/test_overflow.c which does not exist in
4.14.]
Signed-off-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>
commit b19d57d0f3cc6f1022edf94daf1d70506a09e3c2 upstream.
Add flex_array_size() helper for the calculation of the size, in bytes,
of a flexible array member contained within an enclosing structure.
Example of usage:
struct something {
size_t count;
struct foo items[];
};
struct something *instance;
instance = kmalloc(struct_size(instance, items, count), GFP_KERNEL);
instance->count = count;
memcpy(instance->items, src, flex_array_size(instance, items, instance->count));
The helper returns SIZE_MAX on overflow instead of wrapping around.
Additionally replaces parameter "n" with "count" in struct_size() helper
for greater clarity and unification.
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200609012233.GA3371@embeddedor
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
(cherry picked from commit 81bec94f5d864318fa4fccfd06e5449c501885b7)
Signed-off-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>
[ Upstream commit a4947e84f23474803b62a2759b5808147e4e15f9 ]
The various array_size functions use SIZE_MAX define, but missed limits.h
causes to failure to compile code that needs overflow.h.
In file included from drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_std_types_device.c:6:
./include/linux/overflow.h: In function 'array_size':
./include/linux/overflow.h:258:10: error: 'SIZE_MAX' undeclared (first use in this function)
258 | return SIZE_MAX;
| ^~~~~~~~
Fixes: 610b15c50e86 ("overflow.h: Add allocation size calculation helpers")
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200913102928.134985-1-leon@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
commit 610b15c50e86eb1e4b77274fabcaea29ac72d6a8 upstream.
In preparation for replacing unchecked overflows for memory allocations,
this creates helpers for the 3 most common calculations:
array_size(a, b): 2-dimensional array
array3_size(a, b, c): 3-dimensional array
struct_size(ptr, member, n): struct followed by n-many trailing members
Each of these return SIZE_MAX on overflow instead of wrapping around.
(Additionally renames a variable named "array_size" to avoid future
collision.)
Co-developed-by: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit f0907827a8a9152aedac2833ed1b674a7b2a44f2 upstream.
This adds wrappers for the __builtin overflow checkers present in gcc
5.1+ as well as fallback implementations for earlier compilers. It's not
that easy to implement the fully generic __builtin_X_overflow(T1 a, T2
b, T3 *d) in macros, so the fallback code assumes that T1, T2 and T3 are
the same. We obviously don't want the wrappers to have different
semantics depending on $GCC_VERSION, so we also insist on that even when
using the builtins.
There are a few problems with the 'a+b < a' idiom for checking for
overflow: For signed types, it relies on undefined behaviour and is
not actually complete (it doesn't check underflow;
e.g. INT_MIN+INT_MIN == 0 isn't caught). Due to type promotion it
is wrong for all types (signed and unsigned) narrower than
int. Similarly, when a and b does not have the same type, there are
subtle cases like
u32 a;
if (a + sizeof(foo) < a)
return -EOVERFLOW;
a += sizeof(foo);
where the test is always false on 64 bit platforms. Add to that that it
is not always possible to determine the types involved at a glance.
The new overflow.h is somewhat bulky, but that's mostly a result of
trying to be type-generic, complete (e.g. catching not only overflow
but also signed underflow) and not relying on undefined behaviour.
Linus is of course right [1] that for unsigned subtraction a-b, the
right way to check for overflow (underflow) is "b > a" and not
"__builtin_sub_overflow(a, b, &d)", but that's just one out of six cases
covered here, and included mostly for completeness.
So is it worth it? I think it is, if nothing else for the documentation
value of seeing
if (check_add_overflow(a, b, &d))
return -EGOAWAY;
do_stuff_with(d);
instead of the open-coded (and possibly wrong and/or incomplete and/or
UBsan-tickling)
if (a+b < a)
return -EGOAWAY;
do_stuff_with(a+b);
While gcc does recognize the 'a+b < a' idiom for testing unsigned add
overflow, it doesn't do nearly as good for unsigned multiplication
(there's also no single well-established idiom). So using
check_mul_overflow in kcalloc and friends may also make gcc generate
slightly better code.
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/2/658
Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
