Re: find_next bitops on m68k may cause out of bounds memory access

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Thanks for spotting this - does anyone remember when this version of
find_next bitops was first introduced?

I wonder whether this might explain our crashes while using SLUB in
recent kernels.

  Michael

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
find_next bitops on m68k (find_next_zero_bit, find_next_bit, and
ext2_find_next_bit) may cause out of bounds memory access
when the bitmap size in bits % 32 != 0 and offset (the bitnumber
to start searching at) is very close to the bitmap size.

For example,

       unsigned long bitmap[2] = { 0, 0};
       find_next_bit(bitmap, 63, 62)

1. find_next_bit() tries to find any set bits in bitmap[1], but no bits set

2. Then find_first_bit(bimap + 2, -1)

3. Unfortunately find_fist_bit() takes unsigned int as the size argument.

Can't that be changed? After all, find_next_bit takes int as size as well.

4. find_first_bit will access bitmap[3~] until it find any set bits.

Here is find_next_bit() in arch/m68k/include/asm/bitops_mm.h:

static inline int find_next_bit(const unsigned long *vaddr, int size,
                               int offset)
{
       const unsigned long *p = vaddr + (offset >> 5);
       int bit = offset & 31UL, res;

       if (offset >= size)
               return size;

       if (bit) {
               unsigned long num = *p++ & (~0UL << bit);
               offset -= bit;

               /* Look for one in first longword */
               __asm__ __volatile__ ("bfffo %1{#0,#0},%0"
                                     : "=d" (res) : "d" (num & -num));
               if (res < 32)
                       return offset + (res ^ 31);
               offset += 32;
       }
       /* No one yet, search remaining full bytes for a one */

I'll try adding a sanity check here to see whether this actually
causes any trouble with SLUB.

       res = find_first_bit(p, size - ((long)p - (long)vaddr) * 8);
       return offset + res;
}

find_next_zero_bit and ext2_find_next_bit also have same problem.
Actually I found this while testing ext2_find_next_bit in user space.

The easiest and reliable way to fix this is that switching to generic
implementation of find bitops.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Video for Linux]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux S/390]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux