[Sound-open-firmware] out-of-bounds access in sound/soc/sof/topology.c
Hi,
I'm running 5.10.111 LTS, so if this has been fixed already then we definitely want to cherry pick the fix for -stable.
Anonymous union in this struct is of zero size
/* generic control data */ struct sof_ipc_ctrl_data { struct sof_ipc_reply rhdr; uint32_t comp_id;
/* control access and data type */ uint32_t type; /**< enum sof_ipc_ctrl_type */ uint32_t cmd; /**< enum sof_ipc_ctrl_cmd */ uint32_t index; /**< control index for comps > 1 control */
/* control data - can either be appended or DMAed from host */ struct sof_ipc_host_buffer buffer; uint32_t num_elems; /**< in array elems or bytes for data type */ uint32_t elems_remaining; /**< elems remaining if sent in parts */
uint32_t msg_index; /**< for large messages sent in parts */
/* reserved for future use */ uint32_t reserved[6];
/* control data - add new types if needed */ union { /* channel values can be used by volume type controls */ struct sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan chanv[0]; /* component values used by routing controls like mux, mixer */ struct sof_ipc_ctrl_value_comp compv[0]; /* data can be used by binary controls */ struct sof_abi_hdr data[0]; }; } __packed;
sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan and sof_ipc_ctrl_value_comp are of the same size - 8 bytes, while sof_abi_hdr is much larger - _at least_ 32 bytes (`__u32 data[0]` in sof_abi_hdr suggest that there should be more payload after header). But they all contribute 0 to sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_data).
Now control data allocations looks as follows
scontrol->size = struct_size(scontrol->control_data, chanv, le32_to_cpu(mc->num_channels)); scontrol->control_data = kzalloc(scontrol->size, GFP_KERNEL);
Which is sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_data) + mc->num_channels * sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan)
For some reason it uses sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan), which is not the largest member of the union.
And this is where the problem is: in order to make control->data.FOO loads and stores legal we need mc->num_channels to be of at least 4. So that
sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_data) + mc->num_channels * sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan)
92 + 4 * 8
will be the same as
sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_data) + sizeof(sof_abi_hdr).
92 + 32
Otherwise scontrol->control_data->data.FOO will access nearby/foreign slab object.
And there is at least one such memory access. In sof_get_control_data().
wdata[i].pdata = wdata[i].control->control_data->data; *size += wdata[i].pdata->size;
pdata->size is at offset 8, but if, say, mc->num_channels == 1 then we allocate only 8 bytes for pdata, so pdata->size is 4 bytes outside of allocated slab object.
Thoughts?
Thanks Sergey for this email.
On 4/15/22 04:23, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
Hi,
I'm running 5.10.111 LTS, so if this has been fixed already then we definitely want to cherry pick the fix for -stable.
Anonymous union in this struct is of zero size
/* generic control data */ struct sof_ipc_ctrl_data { struct sof_ipc_reply rhdr; uint32_t comp_id;
/* control access and data type */ uint32_t type; /**< enum sof_ipc_ctrl_type */ uint32_t cmd; /**< enum sof_ipc_ctrl_cmd */ uint32_t index; /**< control index for comps > 1 control */ /* control data - can either be appended or DMAed from host */ struct sof_ipc_host_buffer buffer; uint32_t num_elems; /**< in array elems or bytes for data type */ uint32_t elems_remaining; /**< elems remaining if sent in parts */ uint32_t msg_index; /**< for large messages sent in parts */ /* reserved for future use */ uint32_t reserved[6]; /* control data - add new types if needed */ union { /* channel values can be used by volume type controls */ struct sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan chanv[0]; /* component values used by routing controls like mux, mixer */ struct sof_ipc_ctrl_value_comp compv[0]; /* data can be used by binary controls */ struct sof_abi_hdr data[0]; };} __packed;
sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan and sof_ipc_ctrl_value_comp are of the same size - 8 bytes, while sof_abi_hdr is much larger - _at least_ 32 bytes (`__u32 data[0]` in sof_abi_hdr suggest that there should be more payload after header). But they all contribute 0 to sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_data).
Now control data allocations looks as follows
scontrol->size = struct_size(scontrol->control_data, chanv, le32_to_cpu(mc->num_channels)); scontrol->control_data = kzalloc(scontrol->size, GFP_KERNEL);
Which is sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_data) + mc->num_channels * sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan)
For some reason it uses sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan), which is not the largest member of the union.
And this is where the problem is: in order to make control->data.FOO loads and stores legal we need mc->num_channels to be of at least 4. So that
sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_data) + mc->num_channels * sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan)
92 + 4 * 8will be the same as
sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_data) + sizeof(sof_abi_hdr).
92 + 32Otherwise scontrol->control_data->data.FOO will access nearby/foreign slab object.
And there is at least one such memory access. In sof_get_control_data().
wdata[i].pdata = wdata[i].control->control_data->data; *size += wdata[i].pdata->size;
pdata->size is at offset 8, but if, say, mc->num_channels == 1 then we allocate only 8 bytes for pdata, so pdata->size is 4 bytes outside of allocated slab object.
Thoughts?
The SOF contributors who wrote that code are all on an extended Easter week-end or vacation so we'll need more time to provide a definitive answer.
I am far from an expert on the topology, but I note that the 'data' field is only used for binary controls, where we use the maximum possible size for a control, without any arithmetic involving channels. It makes sense to me, the binary data does not have any defined structure, it's just a bunch of bytes provided as is to the firmware.
static int sof_ipc3_control_load_bytes(struct snd_sof_dev *sdev, struct snd_sof_control *scontrol) { struct sof_ipc_ctrl_data *cdata; int ret;
scontrol->ipc_control_data = kzalloc(scontrol->max_size, GFP_KERNEL); if (!scontrol->ipc_control_data) return -ENOMEM;
In other cases, such as volumes and enums, the 'data' field doesn't seem to be used but we do use the channel information for volume and enums.
static int sof_ipc3_control_load_volume(struct snd_sof_dev *sdev, struct snd_sof_control *scontrol) { struct sof_ipc_ctrl_data *cdata; int i;
/* init the volume get/put data */ scontrol->size = struct_size(cdata, chanv, scontrol->num_channels);
scontrol->ipc_control_data = kzalloc(scontrol->size, GFP_KERNEL);
static int sof_ipc3_control_load_enum(struct snd_sof_dev *sdev, struct snd_sof_control *scontrol) { struct sof_ipc_ctrl_data *cdata;
/* init the enum get/put data */ scontrol->size = struct_size(cdata, chanv, scontrol->num_channels);
scontrol->ipc_control_data = kzalloc(scontrol->size, GFP_KERNEL); if (!scontrol->ipc_control_data)
Given that we have two ways of allocating the memory, I am not sure there is a problem, but I could be wrong.
I checked the v5.10.111 code and I see the same code, with the max_size being used for sof_control_load_bytes() and no channel-based arithmetic.
Can I ask how you found out about this problem, is this the result of a warning/error reported by a software tool or based on your reviews of the code?
Thanks -Pierre
Hi,
On (22/04/15 11:00), Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
Now control data allocations looks as follows
scontrol->size = struct_size(scontrol->control_data, chanv, le32_to_cpu(mc->num_channels)); scontrol->control_data = kzalloc(scontrol->size, GFP_KERNEL);
Which is sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_data) + mc->num_channels * sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan)
[..]
I checked the v5.10.111 code and I see the same code, with the max_size being used for sof_control_load_bytes() and no channel-based arithmetic.
Can I ask how you found out about this problem, is this the result of a warning/error reported by a software tool or based on your reviews of the code?
I some KASAN warnings, confirmed. This appears to be when control_data is allocated as control_data.chanv
scontrol->size = 92 + 1 * sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan)
but being dereferenced as it was control_data.data, so the 8 bytes "payload" is being used as a 32 bytes "payload".
I'd say the first one is scarier than the second one. This should be two data->size and one data->data accesses in sof_process_load()
if (ipc_data_size) { for (i = 0; i < widget->num_kcontrols; i++) { memcpy(&process->data[offset], wdata[i].pdata->data, wdata[i].pdata->size); offset += wdata[i].pdata->size; } }
[ 21.493203] ================================================================== [ 21.493254] BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in sof_widget_ready+0x1710/0x20a8 [snd_sof] [ 21.493276] Read of size 4 at addr ffff888101d25865 by task udevd/2538
[ 21.493317] CPU: 6 PID: 2538 Comm: udevd Tainted: G U 5.10.111 #20 f82fe8812f39d1966e2c6a66cfdb6cc00489a69b [ 21.493364] Call Trace: [ 21.493424] dump_stack+0xb1/0x111 [ 21.493478] print_address_description+0x25/0x4fe [ 21.493521] ? printk+0x76/0x96 [ 21.493568] kasan_report+0x14f/0x190 [ 21.493639] ? sof_widget_ready+0x1710/0x20a8 [snd_sof 35e04f225667e77b61e030d236a681f127c4c356] [ 21.493708] ? sof_widget_ready+0x1710/0x20a8 [snd_sof 35e04f225667e77b61e030d236a681f127c4c356] [ 21.493756] check_memory_region+0x17f/0x183 [ 21.493825] sof_widget_ready+0x1710/0x20a8 [snd_sof 35e04f225667e77b61e030d236a681f127c4c356] [ 21.493910] ? sof_route_unload+0xb8/0xb8 [snd_sof 35e04f225667e77b61e030d236a681f127c4c356] [ 21.493959] soc_tplg_dapm_widget_elems_load+0x14c2/0x1758 [ 21.494035] ? soc_tplg_dapm_graph_elems_load+0x320/0x320 [ 21.494079] snd_soc_tplg_component_load+0x309/0x5d7 [ 21.494156] snd_sof_load_topology+0x78/0x115 [snd_sof 35e04f225667e77b61e030d236a681f127c4c356] [ 21.494228] sof_pcm_probe+0xa4/0xd7 [snd_sof 35e04f225667e77b61e030d236a681f127c4c356] [ 21.494277] snd_soc_component_probe+0x3b/0x99 [ 21.494321] soc_probe_component+0x2a3/0x4fc [ 21.494365] snd_soc_bind_card+0x83c/0xfe3 [ 21.494426] devm_snd_soc_register_card+0x48/0x83 [ 21.494474] platform_drv_probe+0x88/0xac [ 21.494519] really_probe+0x1b2/0x4f1 [ 21.494565] driver_probe_device+0x98/0xd7 [ 21.494609] device_driver_attach+0x71/0x96 [ 21.494651] __driver_attach+0xda/0xe5 [ 21.494691] ? driver_attach+0x2d/0x2d [ 21.494733] bus_for_each_dev+0xcc/0x102 [ 21.494779] bus_add_driver+0x1cb/0x2e3 [ 21.494827] driver_register+0xd7/0x19c [ 21.494867] ? 0xffffffffc0c60000 [ 21.494909] do_one_initcall+0x158/0x30c [ 21.494967] ? intel_bw_atomic_check+0x3ef/0x67b [ 21.495014] do_init_module+0xe5/0x2dc [ 21.495060] load_module+0x3d0b/0x411a [ 21.495129] ? __kasan_slab_free+0x128/0x144 [ 21.495175] __se_sys_finit_module+0x13e/0x166 [ 21.495227] do_syscall_64+0x43/0x55 [ 21.495272] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 [ 21.495314] RIP: 0033:0x7ee05f706899 [ 21.495362] Code: 48 8d 3d 9a bd 0c 00 0f 05 eb ad 66 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 89 f8 48 89 f7 48 89 d6 48 89 ca 4d 89 c2 4d 89 c8 4c 8b 4c 24 08 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 8b 0d 9f 85 0c 00 f7 d8 64 89 01 48 [ 21.495404] RSP: 002b:00007ffc67d1a128 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000139 [ 21.495464] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000004 RCX: 00007ee05f706899 [ 21.495500] RDX: 0000000000000004 RSI: 00007ee05f7f8adb RDI: 0000000000000018 [ 21.495537] RBP: 00007ffc67d1a190 R08: 000056d1041460d0 R09: 00007ffc67d1a190 [ 21.495572] R10: 00000000003ebf60 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000020000 [ 21.495608] R13: 000056d102cbf6b0 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 00007ee05f7f8adb
[ 21.495659] Allocated by task 2538: [ 21.495680] stack_trace_save+0x89/0xb8 [ 21.495698] kasan_save_stack+0x36/0x56 [ 21.495715] __kasan_kmalloc+0xf5/0x10c [ 21.495734] __kmalloc+0xf4/0x2d2 [ 21.495762] sof_control_load+0x17c/0xaf9 [snd_sof] [ 21.495782] soc_tplg_dapm_widget_elems_load+0xfa5/0x1758 [ 21.495801] snd_soc_tplg_component_load+0x309/0x5d7 [ 21.495828] snd_sof_load_topology+0x78/0x115 [snd_sof] [ 21.495854] sof_pcm_probe+0xa4/0xd7 [snd_sof] [ 21.495873] snd_soc_component_probe+0x3b/0x99 [ 21.495890] soc_probe_component+0x2a3/0x4fc [ 21.495907] snd_soc_bind_card+0x83c/0xfe3 [ 21.495925] devm_snd_soc_register_card+0x48/0x83 [ 21.495944] platform_drv_probe+0x88/0xac [ 21.495963] really_probe+0x1b2/0x4f1 [ 21.495981] driver_probe_device+0x98/0xd7 [ 21.495998] device_driver_attach+0x71/0x96 [ 21.496015] __driver_attach+0xda/0xe5 [ 21.496033] bus_for_each_dev+0xcc/0x102 [ 21.496051] bus_add_driver+0x1cb/0x2e3 [ 21.496073] driver_register+0xd7/0x19c [ 21.496095] do_one_initcall+0x158/0x30c [ 21.496112] do_init_module+0xe5/0x2dc [ 21.496129] load_module+0x3d0b/0x411a [ 21.496146] __se_sys_finit_module+0x13e/0x166 [ 21.496164] do_syscall_64+0x43/0x55 [ 21.496183] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
[ 21.496212] The buggy address belongs to the object at ffff888101d25800 which belongs to the cache kmalloc-128 of size 128 [ 21.496232] The buggy address is located 101 bytes inside of 128-byte region [ffff888101d25800, ffff888101d25880) [ 21.496247] The buggy address belongs to the page: [ 21.496270] page:000000001cb121a9 refcount:1 mapcount:0 mapping:0000000000000000 index:0x0 pfn:0x101d24 [ 21.496287] head:000000001cb121a9 order:1 compound_mapcount:0 [ 21.496305] flags: 0x8000000000010200(slab|head) [ 21.496329] raw: 8000000000010200 ffffea0004268c80 0000000700000007 ffff888100043680 [ 21.496351] raw: 0000000000000000 0000000080200020 00000001ffffffff 0000000000000000 [ 21.496366] page dumped because: kasan: bad access detected
[ 21.496390] Memory state around the buggy address: [ 21.496408] ffff888101d25700: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 [ 21.496424] ffff888101d25780: fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc [ 21.496440] >ffff888101d25800: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 05 fc fc fc [ 21.496455] ^ [ 21.496472] ffff888101d25880: fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc [ 21.496488] ffff888101d25900: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 [ 21.496501] ==================================================================
The seconds one is sof_get_control_data()
*size += wdata[i].pdata->size;
[ 20.174619] ================================================================== [ 20.174672] BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in sof_widget_ready+0x1485/0x1f15 [snd_sof] [ 20.174694] Read of size 4 at addr ffff88813f66aa64 by task udevd/2525
[ 20.174735] CPU: 6 PID: 2525 Comm: udevd Tainted: G U 5.10.111 #15 0affb963ab1ae58c88daed12d4caa605c5149ad7 [ 20.174768] Call Trace: [ 20.174797] dump_stack+0xb1/0x111 [ 20.174823] print_address_description+0x25/0x4fe [ 20.174844] ? printk+0x76/0x96 [ 20.174866] kasan_report+0x14f/0x190 [ 20.174898] ? sof_widget_ready+0x1485/0x1f15 [snd_sof ed49f3db2df0d72704365322eabcc747c7cbe78c] [ 20.174929] ? sof_widget_ready+0x12cb/0x1f15 [snd_sof ed49f3db2df0d72704365322eabcc747c7cbe78c] [ 20.174958] ? sof_widget_ready+0x1485/0x1f15 [snd_sof ed49f3db2df0d72704365322eabcc747c7cbe78c] [ 20.174980] check_memory_region+0x17f/0x183 [ 20.175010] sof_widget_ready+0x1485/0x1f15 [snd_sof ed49f3db2df0d72704365322eabcc747c7cbe78c] [ 20.175048] ? sof_route_unload+0xb8/0xb8 [snd_sof ed49f3db2df0d72704365322eabcc747c7cbe78c] [ 20.175072] soc_tplg_dapm_widget_elems_load+0x14c2/0x1758 [ 20.175108] ? soc_tplg_dapm_graph_elems_load+0x320/0x320 [ 20.175128] snd_soc_tplg_component_load+0x309/0x5d7 [ 20.175163] snd_sof_load_topology+0x78/0x115 [snd_sof ed49f3db2df0d72704365322eabcc747c7cbe78c] [ 20.175196] sof_pcm_probe+0xa4/0xd7 [snd_sof ed49f3db2df0d72704365322eabcc747c7cbe78c] [ 20.175220] snd_soc_component_probe+0x3b/0x99 [ 20.175240] soc_probe_component+0x2a3/0x4fc [ 20.175261] snd_soc_bind_card+0x83c/0xfe3 [ 20.175288] devm_snd_soc_register_card+0x48/0x83 [ 20.175310] platform_drv_probe+0x88/0xac [ 20.175331] really_probe+0x1b2/0x4f1 [ 20.175352] driver_probe_device+0x98/0xd7 [ 20.175372] device_driver_attach+0x71/0x96 [ 20.175392] __driver_attach+0xda/0xe5 [ 20.175410] ? driver_attach+0x2d/0x2d [ 20.175429] bus_for_each_dev+0xcc/0x102 [ 20.175451] bus_add_driver+0x1cb/0x2e3 [ 20.175473] driver_register+0xd7/0x19c [ 20.175492] ? 0xffffffffc0ec8000 [ 20.175512] do_one_initcall+0x158/0x30c [ 20.175539] ? intel_bw_atomic_check+0x3ef/0x67b [ 20.175561] do_init_module+0xe5/0x2dc [ 20.175582] load_module+0x3d0b/0x411a [ 20.175615] ? __kasan_slab_free+0x128/0x144 [ 20.175636] __se_sys_finit_module+0x13e/0x166 [ 20.175659] do_syscall_64+0x43/0x55 [ 20.175681] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 [ 20.175699] RIP: 0033:0x78e6c3948899 [ 20.175722] Code: 48 8d 3d 9a bd 0c 00 0f 05 eb ad 66 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 89 f8 48 89 f7 48 89 d6 48 89 ca 4d 89 c2 4d 89 c8 4c 8b 4c 24 08 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 8b 0d 9f 85 0c 00 f7 d8 64 89 01 48 [ 20.175741] RSP: 002b:00007ffff7b907a8 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000139 [ 20.175768] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000004 RCX: 000078e6c3948899 [ 20.175785] RDX: 0000000000000004 RSI: 000078e6c3a3aadb RDI: 0000000000000017 [ 20.175802] RBP: 00007ffff7b90810 R08: 00005a58cc4cde40 R09: 00007ffff7b90810 [ 20.175818] R10: 00000000003ebf60 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000020000 [ 20.175834] R13: 00005a58cb0486b0 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 000078e6c3a3aadb
[ 20.175865] Allocated by task 2525: [ 20.175885] stack_trace_save+0x89/0xb8 [ 20.175903] kasan_save_stack+0x36/0x56 [ 20.175920] __kasan_kmalloc+0xf5/0x10c [ 20.175940] __kmalloc+0xf4/0x2d2 [ 20.175966] sof_control_load+0x17c/0xaf4 [snd_sof] [ 20.175986] soc_tplg_dapm_widget_elems_load+0xfa5/0x1758 [ 20.176005] snd_soc_tplg_component_load+0x309/0x5d7 [ 20.176032] snd_sof_load_topology+0x78/0x115 [snd_sof] [ 20.176058] sof_pcm_probe+0xa4/0xd7 [snd_sof] [ 20.176076] snd_soc_component_probe+0x3b/0x99 [ 20.176093] soc_probe_component+0x2a3/0x4fc [ 20.176109] snd_soc_bind_card+0x83c/0xfe3 [ 20.176127] devm_snd_soc_register_card+0x48/0x83 [ 20.176145] platform_drv_probe+0x88/0xac [ 20.176162] really_probe+0x1b2/0x4f1 [ 20.176179] driver_probe_device+0x98/0xd7 [ 20.176197] device_driver_attach+0x71/0x96 [ 20.176214] __driver_attach+0xda/0xe5 [ 20.176232] bus_for_each_dev+0xcc/0x102 [ 20.176249] bus_add_driver+0x1cb/0x2e3 [ 20.176267] driver_register+0xd7/0x19c [ 20.176285] do_one_initcall+0x158/0x30c [ 20.176302] do_init_module+0xe5/0x2dc [ 20.176319] load_module+0x3d0b/0x411a [ 20.176336] __se_sys_finit_module+0x13e/0x166 [ 20.176353] do_syscall_64+0x43/0x55 [ 20.176371] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
[ 20.176400] The buggy address belongs to the object at ffff88813f66aa00 which belongs to the cache kmalloc-128 of size 128 [ 20.176420] The buggy address is located 100 bytes inside of 128-byte region [ffff88813f66aa00, ffff88813f66aa80) [ 20.176434] The buggy address belongs to the page: [ 20.176457] page:0000000032124a7f refcount:1 mapcount:0 mapping:0000000000000000 index:0x0 pfn:0x13f66a [ 20.176475] head:0000000032124a7f order:1 compound_mapcount:0 [ 20.176493] flags: 0x8000000000010200(slab|head) [ 20.176517] raw: 8000000000010200 dead000000000100 dead000000000122 ffff888100043680 [ 20.176539] raw: 0000000000000000 0000000080200020 00000001ffffffff 0000000000000000 [ 20.176554] page dumped because: kasan: bad access detected
[ 20.176578] Memory state around the buggy address: [ 20.176596] ffff88813f66a900: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 04 fc [ 20.176614] ffff88813f66a980: fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc [ 20.176631] >ffff88813f66aa00: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 04 fc fc fc [ 20.176646] ^ [ 20.176664] ffff88813f66aa80: fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc [ 20.176680] ffff88813f66ab00: fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc [ 20.176694] ==================================================================
Hi Sergey, Pierre,
On 15/04/2022 19:00, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
Thanks Sergey for this email.
On 4/15/22 04:23, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
Hi,
I'm running 5.10.111 LTS, so if this has been fixed already then we definitely want to cherry pick the fix for -stable.
I'm afraid, that this is still valid as of today, but in real life I don't think it can happen.
Anonymous union in this struct is of zero size
/* generic control data */ struct sof_ipc_ctrl_data { struct sof_ipc_reply rhdr; uint32_t comp_id;
/* control access and data type */ uint32_t type; /**< enum sof_ipc_ctrl_type */ uint32_t cmd; /**< enum sof_ipc_ctrl_cmd */ uint32_t index; /**< control index for comps > 1 control */ /* control data - can either be appended or DMAed from host */ struct sof_ipc_host_buffer buffer; uint32_t num_elems; /**< in array elems or bytes for data type */ uint32_t elems_remaining; /**< elems remaining if sent in parts */ uint32_t msg_index; /**< for large messages sent in parts */ /* reserved for future use */ uint32_t reserved[6]; /* control data - add new types if needed */ union { /* channel values can be used by volume type controls */ struct sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan chanv[0]; /* component values used by routing controls like mux, mixer */ struct sof_ipc_ctrl_value_comp compv[0]; /* data can be used by binary controls */ struct sof_abi_hdr data[0]; };} __packed;
sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan and sof_ipc_ctrl_value_comp are of the same size - 8 bytes, while sof_abi_hdr is much larger - _at least_ 32 bytes (`__u32 data[0]` in sof_abi_hdr suggest that there should be more payload after header). But they all contribute 0 to sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_data).
Now control data allocations looks as follows
scontrol->size = struct_size(scontrol->control_data, chanv, le32_to_cpu(mc->num_channels)); scontrol->control_data = kzalloc(scontrol->size, GFP_KERNEL);
Which is sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_data) + mc->num_channels * sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan)
For some reason it uses sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan), which is not the largest member of the union.
And this is where the problem is: in order to make control->data.FOO loads and stores legal we need mc->num_channels to be of at least 4. So that
sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_data) + mc->num_channels * sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan)
92 + 4 * 8will be the same as
sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_data) + sizeof(sof_abi_hdr).
92 + 32Otherwise scontrol->control_data->data.FOO will access nearby/foreign slab object.
And there is at least one such memory access. In sof_get_control_data().
wdata[i].pdata = wdata[i].control->control_data->data; *size += wdata[i].pdata->size;
pdata->size is at offset 8, but if, say, mc->num_channels == 1 then we allocate only 8 bytes for pdata, so pdata->size is 4 bytes outside of allocated slab object.
Thoughts?
Your analyzes are spot on, unfortunately. But...
As of today, the sof_get_control_data() is in the call path of (ipc3-topology.c):
sof_widget_update_ipc_comp_process() -> sof_process_load() -> sof_get_control_data()
sof_widget_update_ipc_comp_process() is the ipc_setup callback for snd_soc_dapm_effect. If I'm not mistaken these only carries bin payload and never MIXER/ENUM/SWITCH/VOLUME. This means that the sof_get_control_data() is only called with SND_SOC_TPLG_TYPE_BYTES and for that the allocated data area is correct.
This can explain why we have not seen any issues so far. This does not renders the code right, as how it is written atm is wrong.
The SOF contributors who wrote that code are all on an extended Easter week-end or vacation so we'll need more time to provide a definitive answer.
I am far from an expert on the topology, but I note that the 'data' field is only used for binary controls, where we use the maximum possible size for a control, without any arithmetic involving channels. It makes sense to me, the binary data does not have any defined structure, it's just a bunch of bytes provided as is to the firmware.
static int sof_ipc3_control_load_bytes(struct snd_sof_dev *sdev, struct snd_sof_control *scontrol) { struct sof_ipc_ctrl_data *cdata; int ret;
scontrol->ipc_control_data = kzalloc(scontrol->max_size, GFP_KERNEL); if (!scontrol->ipc_control_data) return -ENOMEM;
In other cases, such as volumes and enums, the 'data' field doesn't seem to be used but we do use the channel information for volume and enums.
static int sof_ipc3_control_load_volume(struct snd_sof_dev *sdev, struct snd_sof_control *scontrol) { struct sof_ipc_ctrl_data *cdata; int i;
/* init the volume get/put data */ scontrol->size = struct_size(cdata, chanv, scontrol->num_channels);
scontrol->ipc_control_data = kzalloc(scontrol->size, GFP_KERNEL);
static int sof_ipc3_control_load_enum(struct snd_sof_dev *sdev, struct snd_sof_control *scontrol) { struct sof_ipc_ctrl_data *cdata;
/* init the enum get/put data */ scontrol->size = struct_size(cdata, chanv, scontrol->num_channels);
scontrol->ipc_control_data = kzalloc(scontrol->size, GFP_KERNEL); if (!scontrol->ipc_control_data)
Given that we have two ways of allocating the memory, I am not sure there is a problem, but I could be wrong.
I checked the v5.10.111 code and I see the same code, with the max_size being used for sof_control_load_bytes() and no channel-based arithmetic.
I agree that the issue can not be triggered due to the nature of how things are working.
Can I ask how you found out about this problem, is this the result of a warning/error reported by a software tool or based on your reviews of the code?
Thanks -Pierre
On 4/19/22 06:50, Péter Ujfalusi wrote:
Hi Sergey, Pierre,
On 15/04/2022 19:00, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
Thanks Sergey for this email.
On 4/15/22 04:23, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
Hi,
I'm running 5.10.111 LTS, so if this has been fixed already then we definitely want to cherry pick the fix for -stable.
I'm afraid, that this is still valid as of today, but in real life I don't think it can happen.
Anonymous union in this struct is of zero size
/* generic control data */ struct sof_ipc_ctrl_data { struct sof_ipc_reply rhdr; uint32_t comp_id;
/* control access and data type */ uint32_t type; /**< enum sof_ipc_ctrl_type */ uint32_t cmd; /**< enum sof_ipc_ctrl_cmd */ uint32_t index; /**< control index for comps > 1 control */ /* control data - can either be appended or DMAed from host */ struct sof_ipc_host_buffer buffer; uint32_t num_elems; /**< in array elems or bytes for data type */ uint32_t elems_remaining; /**< elems remaining if sent in parts */ uint32_t msg_index; /**< for large messages sent in parts */ /* reserved for future use */ uint32_t reserved[6]; /* control data - add new types if needed */ union { /* channel values can be used by volume type controls */ struct sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan chanv[0]; /* component values used by routing controls like mux, mixer */ struct sof_ipc_ctrl_value_comp compv[0]; /* data can be used by binary controls */ struct sof_abi_hdr data[0]; };} __packed;
sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan and sof_ipc_ctrl_value_comp are of the same size - 8 bytes, while sof_abi_hdr is much larger - _at least_ 32 bytes (`__u32 data[0]` in sof_abi_hdr suggest that there should be more payload after header). But they all contribute 0 to sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_data).
Now control data allocations looks as follows
scontrol->size = struct_size(scontrol->control_data, chanv, le32_to_cpu(mc->num_channels)); scontrol->control_data = kzalloc(scontrol->size, GFP_KERNEL);
Which is sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_data) + mc->num_channels * sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan)
For some reason it uses sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan), which is not the largest member of the union.
And this is where the problem is: in order to make control->data.FOO loads and stores legal we need mc->num_channels to be of at least 4. So that
sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_data) + mc->num_channels * sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan)
92 + 4 * 8will be the same as
sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_data) + sizeof(sof_abi_hdr).
92 + 32Otherwise scontrol->control_data->data.FOO will access nearby/foreign slab object.
And there is at least one such memory access. In sof_get_control_data().
wdata[i].pdata = wdata[i].control->control_data->data; *size += wdata[i].pdata->size;
pdata->size is at offset 8, but if, say, mc->num_channels == 1 then we allocate only 8 bytes for pdata, so pdata->size is 4 bytes outside of allocated slab object.
Thoughts?
Your analyzes are spot on, unfortunately. But...
As of today, the sof_get_control_data() is in the call path of (ipc3-topology.c):
sof_widget_update_ipc_comp_process() -> sof_process_load() -> sof_get_control_data()
sof_widget_update_ipc_comp_process() is the ipc_setup callback for snd_soc_dapm_effect. If I'm not mistaken these only carries bin payload and never MIXER/ENUM/SWITCH/VOLUME. This means that the sof_get_control_data() is only called with SND_SOC_TPLG_TYPE_BYTES and for that the allocated data area is correct.
This can explain why we have not seen any issues so far. This does not renders the code right, as how it is written atm is wrong.
Sergey's results with KASAN show that there's a real-life problem though. I also don't understand how that might happen.
Could it be that these results are with a specific topology where our assumptions are incorrect?
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 10:55 AM Pierre-Louis Bossart pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com wrote:
On 4/19/22 06:50, Péter Ujfalusi wrote:
Hi Sergey, Pierre,
On 15/04/2022 19:00, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
Thanks Sergey for this email.
On 4/15/22 04:23, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
Hi,
I'm running 5.10.111 LTS, so if this has been fixed already then we definitely want to cherry pick the fix for -stable.
I'm afraid, that this is still valid as of today, but in real life I don't think it can happen.
Anonymous union in this struct is of zero size
/* generic control data */ struct sof_ipc_ctrl_data { struct sof_ipc_reply rhdr; uint32_t comp_id;
/* control access and data type */ uint32_t type; /**< enum sof_ipc_ctrl_type */ uint32_t cmd; /**< enum sof_ipc_ctrl_cmd */ uint32_t index; /**< control index for comps > 1 control */ /* control data - can either be appended or DMAed from host */ struct sof_ipc_host_buffer buffer; uint32_t num_elems; /**< in array elems or bytes for data type */ uint32_t elems_remaining; /**< elems remaining if sent in parts */ uint32_t msg_index; /**< for large messages sent in parts */ /* reserved for future use */ uint32_t reserved[6]; /* control data - add new types if needed */ union { /* channel values can be used by volume type controls */ struct sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan chanv[0]; /* component values used by routing controls like mux, mixer */ struct sof_ipc_ctrl_value_comp compv[0]; /* data can be used by binary controls */ struct sof_abi_hdr data[0]; };} __packed;
sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan and sof_ipc_ctrl_value_comp are of the same size - 8 bytes, while sof_abi_hdr is much larger - _at least_ 32 bytes (`__u32 data[0]` in sof_abi_hdr suggest that there should be more payload after header). But they all contribute 0 to sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_data).
Now control data allocations looks as follows
scontrol->size = struct_size(scontrol->control_data, chanv, le32_to_cpu(mc->num_channels)); scontrol->control_data = kzalloc(scontrol->size, GFP_KERNEL);Which is sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_data) + mc->num_channels * sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan)
For some reason it uses sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan), which is not the largest member of the union.
And this is where the problem is: in order to make control->data.FOO loads and stores legal we need mc->num_channels to be of at least 4. So that
sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_data) + mc->num_channels * sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan)
92 + 4 * 8will be the same as
sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_data) + sizeof(sof_abi_hdr).
92 + 32Otherwise scontrol->control_data->data.FOO will access nearby/foreign slab object.
And there is at least one such memory access. In sof_get_control_data().
wdata[i].pdata = wdata[i].control->control_data->data; *size += wdata[i].pdata->size;pdata->size is at offset 8, but if, say, mc->num_channels == 1 then we allocate only 8 bytes for pdata, so pdata->size is 4 bytes outside of allocated slab object.
Thoughts?
Your analyzes are spot on, unfortunately. But...
As of today, the sof_get_control_data() is in the call path of (ipc3-topology.c):
sof_widget_update_ipc_comp_process() -> sof_process_load() -> sof_get_control_data()
sof_widget_update_ipc_comp_process() is the ipc_setup callback for snd_soc_dapm_effect. If I'm not mistaken these only carries bin payload and never MIXER/ENUM/SWITCH/VOLUME. This means that the sof_get_control_data() is only called with SND_SOC_TPLG_TYPE_BYTES and for that the allocated data area is correct.
This can explain why we have not seen any issues so far. This does not renders the code right, as how it is written atm is wrong.
Sergey's results with KASAN show that there's a real-life problem though. I also don't understand how that might happen.
Could it be that these results are with a specific topology where our assumptions are incorrect?
That would align with our testing as we are seeing the failing on exactly once device with a custom topology with a bytes payload. See sof-jsl-rt5682.m4 with -DWAVES configured for sof-jsl-rt5682-rt1015.tplg
On (22/04/19 08:07), Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
Your analyzes are spot on, unfortunately. But...
As of today, the sof_get_control_data() is in the call path of (ipc3-topology.c):
sof_widget_update_ipc_comp_process() -> sof_process_load() -> sof_get_control_data()
sof_widget_update_ipc_comp_process() is the ipc_setup callback for snd_soc_dapm_effect. If I'm not mistaken these only carries bin payload and never MIXER/ENUM/SWITCH/VOLUME. This means that the sof_get_control_data() is only called with SND_SOC_TPLG_TYPE_BYTES and for that the allocated data area is correct.
This can explain why we have not seen any issues so far. This does not renders the code right, as how it is written atm is wrong.
Sergey's results with KASAN show that there's a real-life problem though. I also don't understand how that might happen.
Could it be that these results are with a specific topology where our assumptions are incorrect?
Is there anything I can do to help?
On 27/04/2022 09:55, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
On (22/04/19 08:07), Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
Your analyzes are spot on, unfortunately. But...
As of today, the sof_get_control_data() is in the call path of (ipc3-topology.c):
sof_widget_update_ipc_comp_process() -> sof_process_load() -> sof_get_control_data()
sof_widget_update_ipc_comp_process() is the ipc_setup callback for snd_soc_dapm_effect. If I'm not mistaken these only carries bin payload and never MIXER/ENUM/SWITCH/VOLUME. This means that the sof_get_control_data() is only called with SND_SOC_TPLG_TYPE_BYTES and for that the allocated data area is correct.
This can explain why we have not seen any issues so far. This does not renders the code right, as how it is written atm is wrong.
Sergey's results with KASAN show that there's a real-life problem though. I also don't understand how that might happen.
Could it be that these results are with a specific topology where our assumptions are incorrect?
Is there anything I can do to help?
I will send a patch shortly, I think it is going to be easy to backport for you and test it.
Now control data allocations looks as follows
scontrol->size = struct_size(scontrol->control_data, chanv, le32_to_cpu(mc->num_channels)); scontrol->control_data = kzalloc(scontrol->size, GFP_KERNEL);Which is sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_data) + mc->num_channels * sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan)
For some reason it uses sizeof(sof_ipc_ctrl_value_chan), which is not the largest member of the union.
For the record, this could be hitting as far back as 5.4 as I have been trying to debug an invalid IPC write in JSL.
participants (4)
-
Curtis Malainey -
Pierre-Louis Bossart -
Péter Ujfalusi -
Sergey Senozhatsky