Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/kexec: Fix potential out of bounds in crash_setup_memmap_entries()

[fuqiang wang <fuqiang.wang@easystack.cn>]

在 2023/12/21 21:14, Baoquan He 写道:

> On 12/20/23 at 01:57pm, fuqiang wang wrote:
>> In memmap_exclude_ranges(), there will exclude elfheader from
>> crashk_res. In the current x86 architecture code, the elfheader is
>> always allocated at crashk_res.start. It seems that there won't be a
>> split a new range. But it depends on the allocation position of
>> elfheader in crashk_res. To avoid potential out of bounds in future, Set
>> the array size to 2.
> If so, I would suggest to add extra slot for low 1M too in
> fill_up_crash_elf_data() lest the low 1M could be changed in the future,
> e.g [start, 1M].


Hi Baoquan

This seems to be better for future maintenance. Thank you for your suggestion.

>> But similar issue will not exist in fill_up_crash_elf_data(). Because
>> the range to be excluded is [0, 1M], start (0) is special and will not
>> appear in the middle of existing cmem->ranges[]. I added a comment to
>> explain it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: fuqiang wang <fuqiang.wang@easystack.cn>
>> ---
>>   arch/x86/kernel/crash.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------
>>   1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/crash.c b/arch/x86/kernel/crash.c
>> index c92d88680dbf..1c15d0884c90 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/crash.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/crash.c
>> @@ -149,6 +149,13 @@ static struct crash_mem *fill_up_crash_elf_data(void)
>>   	/*
>>   	 * Exclusion of crash region and/or crashk_low_res may cause
>>   	 * another range split. So add extra two slots here.
>> +	 *
>> +	 * Exclusion of low 1M may not cause another range split, because the
>> +	 * range of exclude is [0, 1M] and the condition for splitting a new
>> +	 * region is that the start, end parameters are both in a certain
>> +	 * existing region in cmem and cannot be equal to existing region's
>> +	 * start or end. Obviously, the start of [0, 1M] cannot meet this
>> +	 * condition.
>>   	 */
>>   	nr_ranges += 2;
>>   	cmem = vzalloc(struct_size(cmem, ranges, nr_ranges));
>> @@ -282,9 +289,15 @@ int crash_setup_memmap_entries(struct kimage *image, struct boot_params *params)
>>   	struct crash_memmap_data cmd;
>>   	struct crash_mem *cmem;
>>   
>> -	cmem = vzalloc(struct_size(cmem, ranges, 1));
>> +	cmem = vzalloc(struct_size(cmem, ranges, 2));
>>   	if (!cmem)
>>   		return -ENOMEM;
>> +	cmem->max_nr_ranges = 2;
>> +
>> +	/* Exclude some ranges from crashk_res and add rest to memmap */
>> +	ret = memmap_exclude_ranges(image, cmem, crashk_res.start, crashk_res.end);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		goto out;
>>   
>>   	memset(&cmd, 0, sizeof(struct crash_memmap_data));
>>   	cmd.params = params;
>> @@ -320,11 +333,6 @@ int crash_setup_memmap_entries(struct kimage *image, struct boot_params *params)
>>   		add_e820_entry(params, &ei);
>>   	}
>>   
>> -	/* Exclude some ranges from crashk_res and add rest to memmap */
>> -	ret = memmap_exclude_ranges(image, cmem, crashk_res.start, crashk_res.end);
>> -	if (ret)
>> -		goto out;
> And you didn't mention moving above code block up in log. I would
> suggest keeping it as is because it looks more reasonable to be adjacent
> to the following cmem->ranges[] handling.

Yes, baoquan, keeping it as it is may be more coherent.I will post a new patch later.

Thanks
fuqiang

>> -
>>   	for (i = 0; i < cmem->nr_ranges; i++) {
>>   		ei.size = cmem->ranges[i].end - cmem->ranges[i].start + 1;
>>   
>> -- 
>> 2.42.0
>>