UBSAN: array-index-out-of-bounds in arch/powerpc/kernel/legacy_serial.c:359:56

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 07/05/2021 à 10:42, Paul Menzel a écrit :
> [+Andrey]
> 
> Dear Christophe,
> 
> 
> Am 07.05.21 um 10:31 schrieb Christophe Leroy:
> 
>> Le 06/05/2021 à 21:32, Paul Menzel a écrit :
>>> [corrected subject]
>>>
>>> Am 06.05.21 um 21:31 schrieb Paul Menzel:
> 
>>>> On the POWER8 system IBM S822LC, Linux 5.13+, built with USSAN, logs the warning below.
>>>>
>>>> ```
>>>> [    0.030091] ================================================================================
>>>> [    0.030295] UBSAN: array-index-out-of-bounds in arch/powerpc/kernel/legacy_serial.c:359:56
>>>> [    0.030325] index -1 is out of range for type 'legacy_serial_info [8]'
>>>> [    0.030350] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.12.0+ #2
>>>> [    0.030360] Call Trace:
>>>> [    0.030363] [c000000024f1bad0] [c0000000009f4330] dump_stack+0xc4/0x114 (unreliable)
>>>> [    0.030386] [c000000024f1bb20] [c0000000009efed0] ubsan_epilogue+0x18/0x78
>>>> [    0.030400] [c000000024f1bb80] [c0000000009efafc] __ubsan_handle_out_of_bounds+0xac/0xd0
>>>> [    0.030414] [c000000024f1bc20] [c000000001711588] ioremap_legacy_serial_console+0x54/0x144
>>>> [    0.030430] [c000000024f1bc70] [c0000000000123c0] do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2c0
>>>> [    0.030444] [c000000024f1bd40] [c000000001704bc4] kernel_init_freeable+0x19c/0x25c
>>>> [    0.030458] [c000000024f1bda0] [c000000000012a2c] kernel_init+0x2c/0x180
>>>> [    0.030471] [c000000024f1be10] [c00000000000d6ec] ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70
>>>> [    0.030484] ================================================================================
>>>> [    0.030641] ================================================================================
>>>> [    0.030668] UBSAN: array-index-out-of-bounds in arch/powerpc/kernel/legacy_serial.c:360:58
>>>> [    0.030697] index -1 is out of range for type 'plat_serial8250_port [9]'
>>>> [    0.030721] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.12.0+ #2
>>>> [    0.030730] Call Trace:
>>>> [    0.030733] [c000000024f1bad0] [c0000000009f4330] dump_stack+0xc4/0x114 (unreliable)
>>>> [    0.030749] [c000000024f1bb20] [c0000000009efed0] ubsan_epilogue+0x18/0x78
>>>> [    0.030762] [c000000024f1bb80] [c0000000009efafc] __ubsan_handle_out_of_bounds+0xac/0xd0
>>>> [    0.030775] [c000000024f1bc20] [c0000000017115a0] ioremap_legacy_serial_console+0x6c/0x144
>>>> [    0.030790] [c000000024f1bc70] [c0000000000123c0] do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2c0
>>>> [    0.030802] [c000000024f1bd40] [c000000001704bc4] kernel_init_freeable+0x19c/0x25c
>>>> [    0.030816] [c000000024f1bda0] [c000000000012a2c] kernel_init+0x2c/0x180
>>>> [    0.030829] [c000000024f1be10] [c00000000000d6ec] ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70
>>>> [    0.030842] ================================================================================
>>>> ```
>>
>> The function is as follows, so when legacy_serial_console == -1 as in your situation, the pointers 
>> are just not used.
>>
>> static int __init ioremap_legacy_serial_console(void)
>> {
>>      struct legacy_serial_info *info = &legacy_serial_infos[legacy_serial_console];
>>      struct plat_serial8250_port *port = &legacy_serial_ports[legacy_serial_console];
>>      void __iomem *vaddr;
>>
>>      if (legacy_serial_console < 0)
>>          return 0;
>>
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> When I look into the generated code (UBSAN not selected), we see the verification and the bail-out 
>> is done prior to any calculation based on legacy_serial_console.
>>
>> 00000000 <ioremap_legacy_serial_console>:
>>    0:    94 21 ff e0     stwu    r1,-32(r1)
>>    4:    3d 20 00 00     lis     r9,0
>>              6: R_PPC_ADDR16_HA    .data
>>    8:    7c 08 02 a6     mflr    r0
>>    c:    bf 81 00 10     stmw    r28,16(r1)
>>   10:    3b 80 00 00     li      r28,0
>>   14:    83 a9 00 00     lwz     r29,0(r9)
>>              16: R_PPC_ADDR16_LO    .data
>>   18:    90 01 00 24     stw     r0,36(r1)
>>   1c:    2c 1d 00 00     cmpwi   r29,0
>>   20:    41 80 00 80     blt     a0 <ioremap_legacy_serial_console+0xa0>
>>
>> So, is it normal that UBSAN reports an error here ?
> 
> If it’s useful, I could disassemble the code here. But please tell me how.
> 
> Sorry, I do not know. I just selected the option, and saw the error. Maybe Andrey has an idea.
> 

No need for you to disassemble, I just wanted to show that without UBSAN there is no problem with 
the index as it is used only after boundary checking. (But if you want to do so, if is just an 
'objdump -dr legacy_serial.o')

Now, with UBSAN, I see that UBSAN does the verification of the index earlier than expected. So what 
to do here, we can modify the code, but that modification would just be to make UBSAN happy as there 
is no problem in itself.

Christophe