On Fri, May 20, 2022, Kees Cook wrote:
> GCC 12 sees that it might be possible for "nr" to be outside the _regs
> array. Add explicit bounds checking.
I think GCC 12 is wrong.
There are four uses of reg_rmw() that don't use hardcoded registers:
$ git grep reg_rmw | grep -v VCPU_REGS_
emulate.c:static ulong *reg_rmw(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt, unsigned nr)
1 emulate.c: ulong *preg = reg_rmw(ctxt, reg);
2 emulate.c: p = (unsigned char *)reg_rmw(ctxt, modrm_reg & 3) + 1;
3 emulate.c: p = reg_rmw(ctxt, modrm_reg);
4 emulate.c: assign_register(reg_rmw(ctxt, reg), val, ctxt->op_bytes);
#1 has three users, but two of those use hardcoded registers.
$ git grep register_address_increment | grep -v VCPU_REGS_
emulate.c:register_address_increment(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt, int reg, int inc)
emulate.c: register_address_increment(ctxt, reg, df * op->bytes);
and that last one is string_addr_inc(), which is only called with RDI or RSI.
#2 can't overflow as the register can only be 0-3 (yay AH/BH/CH/DH operands).
#3 is the !highbyte path of decode_register(), and is a bit messy, but modrm_reg
is always sanitized.
$ git grep -E "decode_register\("
emulate.c:static void *decode_register(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt, u8 modrm_reg,
a emulate.c: op->addr.reg = decode_register(ctxt, reg, ctxt->d & ByteOp);
b emulate.c: op->addr.reg = decode_register(ctxt, ctxt->modrm_rm,
c emulate.c: ctxt->memop.addr.reg = decode_register(ctxt,
ctxt->modrm_rm, true);
For (b) and (c), modrm_reg == ctxt->modrm_rm, which is computed in one place and
is bounded to 0-15:
base_reg = (ctxt->rex_prefix << 3) & 8; /* REX.B */
ctxt->modrm_rm = base_reg | (ctxt->modrm & 0x07);
For (a), "reg" is either modrm_reg or a register that is encoded in the opcode,
both of which are again bounded to 0-15:
unsigned reg = ctxt->modrm_reg;
if (!(ctxt->d & ModRM))
reg = (ctxt->b & 7) | ((ctxt->rex_prefix & 1) << 3);
and
ctxt->modrm_reg = ((ctxt->rex_prefix << 1) & 8); /* REX.R */
ctxt->modrm_reg |= (ctxt->modrm & 0x38) >> 3;
#4 is em_popa() and is just funky hardcoding of popping RAX-RDI, minus RSP.
I did the same exercise for reg_reg() and write_reg(), and the handful of
non-hardcoded use are all bounded in similar ways.
> In function 'reg_read',
> inlined from 'reg_rmw' at ../arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c:266:2:
Is there more of the "stack" available? I don't mind the WARN too much, but if
there is a bug lurking I would much rather fix the bug.
> ../arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c:254:27: warning: array subscript 32 is above array bounds of 'long unsigned int[17]' [-Warray-bounds]
> 254 | return ctxt->_regs[nr];
> | ~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~
> In file included from ../arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c:23:
> ../arch/x86/kvm/kvm_emulate.h: In function 'reg_rmw':
> ../arch/x86/kvm/kvm_emulate.h:366:23: note: while referencing '_regs'
> 366 | unsigned long _regs[NR_VCPU_REGS];
> | ^~~~~
