On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 at 17:00, Christian Göttsche <cgzones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 at 01:07, Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 7, 2023 =?UTF-8?q?Christian=20G=C3=B6ttsche?= <cgzones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > The extensible bitmap supports bit positions up to U32_MAX due to the
> > > type of the member highbit being u32. Use u32 consistently as the type
> > > for bit positions to announce to callers what range of values is
> > > supported.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Christian Göttsche <cgzones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > v3:
> > > - revert type change of unrelated iter variable
> > > - use U32_MAX instead of (u32)-1
> > > v2: avoid declarations in init-clauses of for loops
> > > ---
> > > security/selinux/ss/ebitmap.c | 29 +++++++++++++++--------------
> > > security/selinux/ss/ebitmap.h | 32 ++++++++++++++++----------------
> > > 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > diff --git a/security/selinux/ss/ebitmap.c b/security/selinux/ss/ebitmap.c
> > > index 77875ad355f7..a313e633aa8e 100644
> > > --- a/security/selinux/ss/ebitmap.c
> > > +++ b/security/selinux/ss/ebitmap.c
> > > @@ -471,18 +472,18 @@ int ebitmap_read(struct ebitmap *e, void *fp)
> > > int ebitmap_write(const struct ebitmap *e, void *fp)
> > > {
> > > struct ebitmap_node *n;
> > > - u32 count;
> > > + u32 bit, count, last_bit, last_startbit;
> > > __le32 buf[3];
> > > u64 map;
> > > - int bit, last_bit, last_startbit, rc;
> > > + int rc;
> > >
> > > buf[0] = cpu_to_le32(BITS_PER_U64);
> > >
> > > count = 0;
> > > last_bit = 0;
> > > - last_startbit = -1;
> > > + last_startbit = U32_MAX;
> > > ebitmap_for_each_positive_bit(e, n, bit) {
> > > - if (rounddown(bit, (int)BITS_PER_U64) > last_startbit) {
> > > + if (last_startbit == U32_MAX || rounddown(bit, BITS_PER_U64) > last_startbit) {
> >
> > I'm getting worried about what might happen if the ebitmap starts to
> > contain bits near the end of the range, e.g. U32_MAX. When lastbit
> > was signed this was a non-issue as we could set it to a negative
> > value (-1) and not worry about it, although the maximum value
> > difference between the signed and unsigned types would eventually be
> > a problem.
>
> For the maximum bit of U32_MAX `rounddown(bit, BITS_PER_U64)` will
> return U32_MAX-63, so it does not collide with the special
> last_startbit value of U32_MAX.
Also the current implementation is not safe for bits in the range
[rounddown(U32_MAX, EBITMAP_SIZE), U32_MAX], since the highbit and
`startbit + EBITMAP_SIZE` calculations are not checked for overflows
(since EBITMAP_UNIT_SIZE is not a power of 2 (it's 6 on x64).
>
> > While looking closer at this loop, I'm now wondering if we shouldn't
> > just rewrite the logic a bit to simplify things, and possibly speed
> > it up a small amount. How about something like this:
> >
> > count = 1;
> > n = e->node;
> > while (n->next) {
> > count++;
> > n = n->next;
> > }
> > last_startbit = n->startbit;
> > last_bit = n->startbit + find_last_bit(n->maps, EBITMAP_SIZE);
> >
> > You should probably verify that there isn't something stupid like an
> > off-by-one bug in the code above, but I think it is a lot cleaner
> > than what we currently have and should resolve a lot of the type/math
> > issues.
>
> I think this loop does not work, since in the binary format the map
> size is 64 bits (and thus we need to calculate the number of 64bit
> nodes), but the kernel supports (depending on the architecture) 32bit
> maps for the in-memory representation.
> So the number of in-memory nodes might not be the same as the number
> of nodes in binary format.
>
> p.s.:
>
> Looking at the patch again, `rounddown(bit, BITS_PER_U64)` is computed
> twice and last_bit can probably be dropped in favor of e->highbit.
The last_bit comment can be ignored, since last_bit is the highbit for
the mapsize of the binary format, so it's no equal to e->highbit
(which is relative to the in-memory mapsize).
>
> >
> > > count++;
> > > last_startbit = rounddown(bit, BITS_PER_U64);
> > > }
> > > @@ -496,9 +497,9 @@ int ebitmap_write(const struct ebitmap *e, void *fp)
> > > return rc;
> > >
> > > map = 0;
> > > - last_startbit = INT_MIN;
> > > + last_startbit = U32_MAX;
> > > ebitmap_for_each_positive_bit(e, n, bit) {
> > > - if (rounddown(bit, (int)BITS_PER_U64) > last_startbit) {
> > > + if (last_startbit == U32_MAX || rounddown(bit, BITS_PER_U64) > last_startbit) {
> > > __le64 buf64[1];
> >
> > Similar to the above, I think we can probably rewrite this to simply
> > walk the ebitmap nodes and write them out. Using
> > ebitmap_for_each_positive_bit() seems overly complicated to me,
> > although I may be missing something important and obvious ...
> >
> > --
> > paul-moore.com
