[RFC] iio: pressure: dlhl60d: Check mask_width for IRQs

Commit Message

Kees Cook Feb. 22, 2024, 10:23 p.m. UTC

Clang tripped over a FORTIFY warning in this code, and while it seems it
may be a false positive in Clang due to loop unwinding, the code in
question seems to make a lot of assumptions. Comments added, and the
Clang warning[1] has been worked around by growing the array size.
Also there was an uninitialized 4th byte in the __be32 array that was
being sent through to iio_push_to_buffers().

Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/2000 [1]
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <[e-mail]>
---
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <[e-mail]>
Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Uwe Kleine-König" <[e-mail]>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Nuno Sá" <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
---
 drivers/iio/pressure/dlhl60d.c | 11 +++++++++--
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Jonathan Cameron Feb. 23, 2024, 5:09 p.m. UTC | #1

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 14:23:39 -0800
Kees Cook <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Clang tripped over a FORTIFY warning in this code, and while it seems it
> may be a false positive in Clang due to loop unwinding, the code in
> question seems to make a lot of assumptions. 

Hi Kees,

The assumptions are mostly characteristics of how the IIO buffers work
with the scan masks defined based on indexes in the driver provided
struct iio_chan_spec arrays.

This driver is doing more work than it should need to as we long ago
moved some of the more fiddly handling into the IIO core.

> Comments added, and the
> Clang warning[1] has been worked around by growing the array size.
> Also there was an uninitialized 4th byte in the __be32 array that was
> being sent through to iio_push_to_buffers().

That is indeed not good - the buffer should have been zero initialized.

> 
> Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/2000 [1]
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <[e-mail]>
> ---
> Cc: Jonathan Cameron <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "Uwe Kleine-König" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Andy Shevchenko <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "Nuno Sá" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> ---
>  drivers/iio/pressure/dlhl60d.c | 11 +++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/pressure/dlhl60d.c b/drivers/iio/pressure/dlhl60d.c
> index 28c8269ba65d..9bbecd0bfe88 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/pressure/dlhl60d.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/pressure/dlhl60d.c
> @@ -250,20 +250,27 @@ static irqreturn_t dlh_trigger_handler(int irq, void *private)
>  	struct dlh_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
>  	int ret;
>  	unsigned int chn, i = 0;
> -	__be32 tmp_buf[2];
> +	/* This was only an array pair of 4 bytes. */

True, which is the right size as far as I can tell.
If we need this to suppress a warning then comment should say that.

> +	__be32 tmp_buf[4] = { };
>  
>  	ret = dlh_start_capture_and_read(st);
>  	if (ret)
>  		goto out;
>  
> +	/* Nothing was checking masklength vs ARRAY_SIZE(tmp_buf)? */

Not needed but no way a compiler could know that.

> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(indio_dev->masklength > ARRAY_SIZE(tmp_buf)))
> +		goto out;
> +
>  	for_each_set_bit(chn, indio_dev->active_scan_mask,

This is all a bit pointless if not 'wrong' other than the
4th byte uninitialized part.  The limit can be hard coded as 2 as
that's a characteristic of this driver.

For device that always read a particular set of channels they
should provide indio_dev->available_scan_masks = { BIT(1) | BIT(0), 0 };
and then always push all the data making this always

	memcpy(&tmp_buf[0], &st->rx_buf[1], 3);
	mempcy(&tmp_buf[1], &st->rx_buf[1] + 3, 3);

The buffer demux code in the IIO core will deal with repacking the data
if only one channel is enabled.

>  		indio_dev->masklength) {
> -		memcpy(tmp_buf + i,
> +		/* This is copying 3 bytes. What about the 4th? */
> +		memcpy(&tmp_buf[i],
>  			&st->rx_buf[1] + chn * DLH_NUM_DATA_BYTES,
>  			DLH_NUM_DATA_BYTES);
>  		i++;
>  	}
>  
> +	/* How do we know the iio buffer_list has only 2 items? */

Can only include items from the channels array at indexes up to the max
scan_index in there, so 0 and 1 in this case (1 might not be present if only
one channel is enabled). Sizes (and alignment) are given by storagebits so
4 bytes for each.

>  	iio_push_to_buffers(indio_dev, tmp_buf);
>  
>  out:

Kees Cook Feb. 23, 2024, 5:14 p.m. UTC | #2

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 05:09:18PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 14:23:39 -0800
> Kees Cook <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > Clang tripped over a FORTIFY warning in this code, and while it seems it
> > may be a false positive in Clang due to loop unwinding, the code in
> > question seems to make a lot of assumptions. 
> 
> Hi Kees,
> 
> The assumptions are mostly characteristics of how the IIO buffers work
> with the scan masks defined based on indexes in the driver provided
> struct iio_chan_spec arrays.
> 
> This driver is doing more work than it should need to as we long ago
> moved some of the more fiddly handling into the IIO core.
> 
> > Comments added, and the
> > Clang warning[1] has been worked around by growing the array size.
> > Also there was an uninitialized 4th byte in the __be32 array that was
> > being sent through to iio_push_to_buffers().
> 
> That is indeed not good - the buffer should have been zero initialized.

Okay, I'll get this respun and include the fix.

> 
> > 
> > Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/2000 [1]
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <[e-mail]>
> > ---
> > Cc: Jonathan Cameron <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: "Uwe Kleine-König" <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Andy Shevchenko <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: "Nuno Sá" <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > ---
> >  drivers/iio/pressure/dlhl60d.c | 11 +++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/iio/pressure/dlhl60d.c b/drivers/iio/pressure/dlhl60d.c
> > index 28c8269ba65d..9bbecd0bfe88 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iio/pressure/dlhl60d.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iio/pressure/dlhl60d.c
> > @@ -250,20 +250,27 @@ static irqreturn_t dlh_trigger_handler(int irq, void *private)
> >  	struct dlh_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> >  	int ret;
> >  	unsigned int chn, i = 0;
> > -	__be32 tmp_buf[2];
> > +	/* This was only an array pair of 4 bytes. */
> 
> True, which is the right size as far as I can tell.
> If we need this to suppress a warning then comment should say that.

Okay. I think I'll leave it as 2 and manually "unroll" the loop.

> 
> > +	__be32 tmp_buf[4] = { };
> >  
> >  	ret = dlh_start_capture_and_read(st);
> >  	if (ret)
> >  		goto out;
> >  
> > +	/* Nothing was checking masklength vs ARRAY_SIZE(tmp_buf)? */
> 
> Not needed but no way a compiler could know that.
> 
> > +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(indio_dev->masklength > ARRAY_SIZE(tmp_buf)))
> > +		goto out;
> > +
> >  	for_each_set_bit(chn, indio_dev->active_scan_mask,
> 
> This is all a bit pointless if not 'wrong' other than the
> 4th byte uninitialized part.  The limit can be hard coded as 2 as
> that's a characteristic of this driver.
> 
> For device that always read a particular set of channels they
> should provide indio_dev->available_scan_masks = { BIT(1) | BIT(0), 0 };
> and then always push all the data making this always
> 
> 	memcpy(&tmp_buf[0], &st->rx_buf[1], 3);
> 	mempcy(&tmp_buf[1], &st->rx_buf[1] + 3, 3);

Okay, so this could be unrolled manually to check just for bits 0 and 1?

> 
> The buffer demux code in the IIO core will deal with repacking the data
> if only one channel is enabled.
> 
> >  		indio_dev->masklength) {
> > -		memcpy(tmp_buf + i,
> > +		/* This is copying 3 bytes. What about the 4th? */
> > +		memcpy(&tmp_buf[i],
> >  			&st->rx_buf[1] + chn * DLH_NUM_DATA_BYTES,
> >  			DLH_NUM_DATA_BYTES);
> >  		i++;
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	/* How do we know the iio buffer_list has only 2 items? */
> 
> Can only include items from the channels array at indexes up to the max
> scan_index in there, so 0 and 1 in this case (1 might not be present if only
> one channel is enabled). Sizes (and alignment) are given by storagebits so
> 4 bytes for each.

This code pattern seems repeated through all of iio, so I guess we'll
leave it as-is. It seems like it'd be nice to have a "length" argument
to iio_push_to_buffers(), just to sanity check, but that would need to
be a pretty large patch. :P

> 
> >  	iio_push_to_buffers(indio_dev, tmp_buf);
> >  
> >  out:

Thanks for looking at this!

-Kees

Jonathan Cameron Feb. 23, 2024, 5:45 p.m. UTC | #3

On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 09:14:53 -0800
Kees Cook <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 05:09:18PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 14:23:39 -0800
> > Kees Cook <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >   
> > > Clang tripped over a FORTIFY warning in this code, and while it seems it
> > > may be a false positive in Clang due to loop unwinding, the code in
> > > question seems to make a lot of assumptions.   
> > 
> > Hi Kees,
> > 
> > The assumptions are mostly characteristics of how the IIO buffers work
> > with the scan masks defined based on indexes in the driver provided
> > struct iio_chan_spec arrays.
> > 
> > This driver is doing more work than it should need to as we long ago
> > moved some of the more fiddly handling into the IIO core.
> >   
> > > Comments added, and the
> > > Clang warning[1] has been worked around by growing the array size.
> > > Also there was an uninitialized 4th byte in the __be32 array that was
> > > being sent through to iio_push_to_buffers().  
> > 
> > That is indeed not good - the buffer should have been zero initialized.  
> 
> Okay, I'll get this respun and include the fix.
> 
> >   
> > > 
> > > Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/2000 [1]
> > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <[e-mail]>
> > > ---
> > > Cc: Jonathan Cameron <[e-mail]>
> > > Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <[e-mail]>
> > > Cc: "Uwe Kleine-König" <[e-mail]>
> > > Cc: Andy Shevchenko <[e-mail]>
> > > Cc: "Nuno Sá" <[e-mail]>
> > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/iio/pressure/dlhl60d.c | 11 +++++++++--
> > >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/pressure/dlhl60d.c b/drivers/iio/pressure/dlhl60d.c
> > > index 28c8269ba65d..9bbecd0bfe88 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/iio/pressure/dlhl60d.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/iio/pressure/dlhl60d.c
> > > @@ -250,20 +250,27 @@ static irqreturn_t dlh_trigger_handler(int irq, void *private)
> > >  	struct dlh_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> > >  	int ret;
> > >  	unsigned int chn, i = 0;
> > > -	__be32 tmp_buf[2];
> > > +	/* This was only an array pair of 4 bytes. */  
> > 
> > True, which is the right size as far as I can tell.
> > If we need this to suppress a warning then comment should say that.  
> 
> Okay. I think I'll leave it as 2 and manually "unroll" the loop.

Without the available mask that is a little fiddly you'll have
deal with  channel 0 only enabled, channel 1 only enabled and
both channels 0 and channel 1 enabled.
Not too bad though as only 2 channels.
 
> 
> >   
> > > +	__be32 tmp_buf[4] = { };
> > >  
> > >  	ret = dlh_start_capture_and_read(st);
> > >  	if (ret)
> > >  		goto out;
> > >  
> > > +	/* Nothing was checking masklength vs ARRAY_SIZE(tmp_buf)? */  
> > 
> > Not needed but no way a compiler could know that.
> >   
> > > +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(indio_dev->masklength > ARRAY_SIZE(tmp_buf)))
> > > +		goto out;
> > > +
> > >  	for_each_set_bit(chn, indio_dev->active_scan_mask,  
> > 
> > This is all a bit pointless if not 'wrong' other than the
> > 4th byte uninitialized part.  The limit can be hard coded as 2 as
> > that's a characteristic of this driver.
> > 
> > For device that always read a particular set of channels they
> > should provide indio_dev->available_scan_masks = { BIT(1) | BIT(0), 0 };
> > and then always push all the data making this always
> > 
> > 	memcpy(&tmp_buf[0], &st->rx_buf[1], 3);
> > 	mempcy(&tmp_buf[1], &st->rx_buf[1] + 3, 3);  
> 
> Okay, so this could be unrolled manually to check just for bits 0 and 1?

Ideally it wouldn't check them - the hardwork has been done to read both
channels anyway and the IIO core handles userspace or in kernel consumers
that want a subset of what is enabled, but that needs the available_scan_masks
to be set so that the IIO core knows all channels always enabled.

> 
> > 
> > The buffer demux code in the IIO core will deal with repacking the data
> > if only one channel is enabled.
> >   
> > >  		indio_dev->masklength) {
> > > -		memcpy(tmp_buf + i,
> > > +		/* This is copying 3 bytes. What about the 4th? */
> > > +		memcpy(&tmp_buf[i],
> > >  			&st->rx_buf[1] + chn * DLH_NUM_DATA_BYTES,
> > >  			DLH_NUM_DATA_BYTES);
> > >  		i++;
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > +	/* How do we know the iio buffer_list has only 2 items? */  
> > 
> > Can only include items from the channels array at indexes up to the max
> > scan_index in there, so 0 and 1 in this case (1 might not be present if only
> > one channel is enabled). Sizes (and alignment) are given by storagebits so
> > 4 bytes for each.  
> 
> This code pattern seems repeated through all of iio, so I guess we'll
> leave it as-is. It seems like it'd be nice to have a "length" argument
> to iio_push_to_buffers(), just to sanity check, but that would need to
> be a pretty large patch. :P

yeah. Hindsight!

We could add it in an incremental fashion though
iio_push_to_bufs(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, void *buf, size_t buf_len)
with a length parameter.  The oddity that is
iio_push_to_buffers_with_timestamp() would benefit here as that needs
a bigger buffer than immediately apparent in the driver and we've
had a few bugs around that over the years.

It would probably be a one way check.
I might have a play and see how useful this would be.

> 
> >   
> > >  	iio_push_to_buffers(indio_dev, tmp_buf);
> > >  
> > >  out:  
> 
> Thanks for looking at this!
> 
> -Kees
>

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/iio/pressure/dlhl60d.c b/drivers/iio/pressure/dlhl60d.c
index 28c8269ba65d..9bbecd0bfe88 100644
--- a/drivers/iio/pressure/dlhl60d.c
+++ b/drivers/iio/pressure/dlhl60d.c
@@ -250,20 +250,27 @@  static irqreturn_t dlh_trigger_handler(int irq, void *private)
 	struct dlh_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
 	int ret;
 	unsigned int chn, i = 0;
-	__be32 tmp_buf[2];
+	/* This was only an array pair of 4 bytes. */
+	__be32 tmp_buf[4] = { };
 
 	ret = dlh_start_capture_and_read(st);
 	if (ret)
 		goto out;
 
+	/* Nothing was checking masklength vs ARRAY_SIZE(tmp_buf)? */
+	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(indio_dev->masklength > ARRAY_SIZE(tmp_buf)))
+		goto out;
+
 	for_each_set_bit(chn, indio_dev->active_scan_mask,
 		indio_dev->masklength) {
-		memcpy(tmp_buf + i,
+		/* This is copying 3 bytes. What about the 4th? */
+		memcpy(&tmp_buf[i],
 			&st->rx_buf[1] + chn * DLH_NUM_DATA_BYTES,
 			DLH_NUM_DATA_BYTES);
 		i++;
 	}
 
+	/* How do we know the iio buffer_list has only 2 items? */
 	iio_push_to_buffers(indio_dev, tmp_buf);
 
 out: