Hello Juergen Gross, The patch 5c83511bdb98: "x86/paravirt: Use a single ops structure" from Aug 28, 2018, leads to the following static checker warning: arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c:123 paravirt_patch_default() warn: uncapped user index '*(&pv_ops + type)' arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c:124 paravirt_patch_default() error: buffer overflow '&pv_ops' 90 <= 255 user_rl='0-255' arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c 116 unsigned paravirt_patch_default(u8 type, void *insn_buff, 117 unsigned long addr, unsigned len) 118 { 119 /* 120 * Neat trick to map patch type back to the call within the 121 * corresponding structure. 122 */ 123 void *opfunc = *((void **)&pv_ops + type); ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This code is actually pretty old... This isn't a security issue, but the size of &pv_ops is variable but type isn't checked so we could be reading beyond the end. We could do something like: if (type >= sizeof(pv_ops) / sizeof(void *)) return -EINVAL; opfunc = *((void **)&pv_ops + type); 124 unsigned ret; 125 126 if (opfunc == NULL) 127 /* If there's no function, patch it with a ud2a (BUG) */ 128 ret = paravirt_patch_insns(insn_buff, len, ud2a, ud2a+sizeof(ud2a)); 129 else if (opfunc == _paravirt_nop) 130 ret = 0; 131 regards, dan carpenter
On 10.09.19 16:53, Dan Carpenter wrote:> Hello Juergen Gross, > > The patch 5c83511bdb98: "x86/paravirt: Use a single ops structure" > from Aug 28, 2018, leads to the following static checker warning: > > arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c:123 paravirt_patch_default() > warn: uncapped user index '*(&pv_ops + type)' > > arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c:124 paravirt_patch_default() > error: buffer overflow '&pv_ops' 90 <= 255 user_rl='0-255' > > arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c > 116 unsigned paravirt_patch_default(u8 type, void *insn_buff, > 117 unsigned long addr, unsigned len) > 118 { > 119 /* > 120 * Neat trick to map patch type back to the call within the > 121 * corresponding structure. > 122 */ > 123 void *opfunc = *((void **)&pv_ops + type); > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > This code is actually pretty old... > > This isn't a security issue, but the size of &pv_ops is variable but > type isn't checked so we could be reading beyond the end. We could do > something like: > > if (type >= sizeof(pv_ops) / sizeof(void *)) > return -EINVAL;No, not really. Please check how th return value is being used: it specifies the length of the instruction to patch. Just returning -EINVAL would probably clobber most of the kernel. Please note that type is derived from the pv_ops field names, so in reality the risk to read beyond the end of pv_ops is zero. Juergen