From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: "Jonathan Cameron" <jic23@kernel.org>,
"Lars-Peter Clausen" <lars@metafoo.de>,
"Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
"Andy Shevchenko" <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
"Nuno Sá" <nuno.sa@analog.com>,
linux-iio@vger.kernel.org,
"Nathan Chancellor" <nathan@kernel.org>,
"Nick Desaulniers" <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
"Bill Wendling" <morbo@google.com>,
"Justin Stitt" <justinstitt@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] iio: pressure: dlhl60d: Check mask_width for IRQs
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 17:45:51 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240223174551.00007411@Huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202402230912.50332AF1@keescook>
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 09:14:53 -0800
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 05:09:18PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 14:23:39 -0800
> > Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Clang tripped over a FORTIFY warning in this code, and while it seems it
> > > may be a false positive in Clang due to loop unwinding, the code in
> > > question seems to make a lot of assumptions.
> >
> > Hi Kees,
> >
> > The assumptions are mostly characteristics of how the IIO buffers work
> > with the scan masks defined based on indexes in the driver provided
> > struct iio_chan_spec arrays.
> >
> > This driver is doing more work than it should need to as we long ago
> > moved some of the more fiddly handling into the IIO core.
> >
> > > Comments added, and the
> > > Clang warning[1] has been worked around by growing the array size.
> > > Also there was an uninitialized 4th byte in the __be32 array that was
> > > being sent through to iio_push_to_buffers().
> >
> > That is indeed not good - the buffer should have been zero initialized.
>
> Okay, I'll get this respun and include the fix.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/2000 [1]
> > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > > ---
> > > Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
> > > Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>
> > > Cc: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
> > > Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > > Cc: "Nuno Sá" <nuno.sa@analog.com>
> > > Cc: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org
> > > ---
> > > drivers/iio/pressure/dlhl60d.c | 11 +++++++++--
> > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/pressure/dlhl60d.c b/drivers/iio/pressure/dlhl60d.c
> > > index 28c8269ba65d..9bbecd0bfe88 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/iio/pressure/dlhl60d.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/iio/pressure/dlhl60d.c
> > > @@ -250,20 +250,27 @@ static irqreturn_t dlh_trigger_handler(int irq, void *private)
> > > struct dlh_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> > > int ret;
> > > unsigned int chn, i = 0;
> > > - __be32 tmp_buf[2];
> > > + /* This was only an array pair of 4 bytes. */
> >
> > True, which is the right size as far as I can tell.
> > If we need this to suppress a warning then comment should say that.
>
> Okay. I think I'll leave it as 2 and manually "unroll" the loop.
Without the available mask that is a little fiddly you'll have
deal with channel 0 only enabled, channel 1 only enabled and
both channels 0 and channel 1 enabled.
Not too bad though as only 2 channels.
>
> >
> > > + __be32 tmp_buf[4] = { };
> > >
> > > ret = dlh_start_capture_and_read(st);
> > > if (ret)
> > > goto out;
> > >
> > > + /* Nothing was checking masklength vs ARRAY_SIZE(tmp_buf)? */
> >
> > Not needed but no way a compiler could know that.
> >
> > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(indio_dev->masklength > ARRAY_SIZE(tmp_buf)))
> > > + goto out;
> > > +
> > > for_each_set_bit(chn, indio_dev->active_scan_mask,
> >
> > This is all a bit pointless if not 'wrong' other than the
> > 4th byte uninitialized part. The limit can be hard coded as 2 as
> > that's a characteristic of this driver.
> >
> > For device that always read a particular set of channels they
> > should provide indio_dev->available_scan_masks = { BIT(1) | BIT(0), 0 };
> > and then always push all the data making this always
> >
> > memcpy(&tmp_buf[0], &st->rx_buf[1], 3);
> > mempcy(&tmp_buf[1], &st->rx_buf[1] + 3, 3);
>
> Okay, so this could be unrolled manually to check just for bits 0 and 1?
Ideally it wouldn't check them - the hardwork has been done to read both
channels anyway and the IIO core handles userspace or in kernel consumers
that want a subset of what is enabled, but that needs the available_scan_masks
to be set so that the IIO core knows all channels always enabled.
>
> >
> > The buffer demux code in the IIO core will deal with repacking the data
> > if only one channel is enabled.
> >
> > > indio_dev->masklength) {
> > > - memcpy(tmp_buf + i,
> > > + /* This is copying 3 bytes. What about the 4th? */
> > > + memcpy(&tmp_buf[i],
> > > &st->rx_buf[1] + chn * DLH_NUM_DATA_BYTES,
> > > DLH_NUM_DATA_BYTES);
> > > i++;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + /* How do we know the iio buffer_list has only 2 items? */
> >
> > Can only include items from the channels array at indexes up to the max
> > scan_index in there, so 0 and 1 in this case (1 might not be present if only
> > one channel is enabled). Sizes (and alignment) are given by storagebits so
> > 4 bytes for each.
>
> This code pattern seems repeated through all of iio, so I guess we'll
> leave it as-is. It seems like it'd be nice to have a "length" argument
> to iio_push_to_buffers(), just to sanity check, but that would need to
> be a pretty large patch. :P
yeah. Hindsight!
We could add it in an incremental fashion though
iio_push_to_bufs(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, void *buf, size_t buf_len)
with a length parameter. The oddity that is
iio_push_to_buffers_with_timestamp() would benefit here as that needs
a bigger buffer than immediately apparent in the driver and we've
had a few bugs around that over the years.
It would probably be a one way check.
I might have a play and see how useful this would be.
>
> >
> > > iio_push_to_buffers(indio_dev, tmp_buf);
> > >
> > > out:
>
> Thanks for looking at this!
>
> -Kees
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-23 17:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-22 22:23 [PATCH] [RFC] iio: pressure: dlhl60d: Check mask_width for IRQs Kees Cook
2024-02-23 17:09 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-02-23 17:14 ` Kees Cook
2024-02-23 17:45 ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240223174551.00007411@Huawei.com \
--to=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jic23@kernel.org \
--cc=justinstitt@google.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=lars@metafoo.de \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-iio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=morbo@google.com \
--cc=nathan@kernel.org \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--cc=nuno.sa@analog.com \
--cc=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.