Re: [RFC PATCH] VMCI: Silence memcpy() run-time false positive warning

From: Gustavo A. R. Silva
Date: Mon Jan 01 2024 - 12:45:37 EST




On 1/1/24 07:08, Harshit Mogalapalli wrote:
Syzkaller hit 'WARNING in dg_dispatch_as_host' bug.

memcpy: detected field-spanning write (size 56) of single field "&dg_info->msg"
at drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_datagram.c:237 (size 24)

This is not a 'false postive warning.' This is a legitimately warning
coming from the fortified memcpy().

Under FORTIFY_SOURCE we should not copy data across multiple members
in a structure. For that we alternatives like struct_group(), or as
in this case, splitting memcpy(), or as I suggest below, a mix of
direct assignment and memcpy().



WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1555 at drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_datagram.c:237
dg_dispatch_as_host+0x88e/0xa60 drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_datagram.c:237

Some code commentry, based on my understanding:

544 #define VMCI_DG_SIZE(_dg) (VMCI_DG_HEADERSIZE + (size_t)(_dg)->payload_size)
/// This is 24 + payload_size

memcpy(&dg_info->msg, dg, dg_size);
Destination = dg_info->msg ---> this is a 24 byte
structure(struct vmci_datagram)
Source = dg --> this is a 24 byte structure (struct vmci_datagram)
Size = dg_size = 24 + payload_size


{payload_size = 56-24 =32} -- Syzkaller managed to set payload_size to 32.

35 struct delayed_datagram_info {
36 struct datagram_entry *entry;
37 struct work_struct work;
38 bool in_dg_host_queue;
39 /* msg and msg_payload must be together. */
40 struct vmci_datagram msg;
41 u8 msg_payload[];
42 };

So those extra bytes of payload are copied into msg_payload[], so there
is no bug, but a run time warning is seen while fuzzing with Syzkaller.

One possible way to silence the warning is to split the memcpy() into
two parts -- one -- copying the msg and second taking care of payload.

Reported-by: syzkaller <syzkaller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Suggested-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Harshit Mogalapalli <harshit.m.mogalapalli@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
This patch is only tested with the C reproducer, not any testing
specific to driver is done.
---
drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_datagram.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_datagram.c b/drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_datagram.c
index f50d22882476..b43661590f56 100644
--- a/drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_datagram.c
+++ b/drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_datagram.c
@@ -216,6 +216,7 @@ static int dg_dispatch_as_host(u32 context_id, struct vmci_datagram *dg)
if (dst_entry->run_delayed ||
dg->src.context == VMCI_HOST_CONTEXT_ID) {
struct delayed_datagram_info *dg_info;
+ size_t payload_size = dg_size - VMCI_DG_HEADERSIZE;

This seems to be the same as `dg->payload_size`, so I don't think a new
variable is necessary.

if (atomic_add_return(1, &delayed_dg_host_queue_size)
== VMCI_MAX_DELAYED_DG_HOST_QUEUE_SIZE) {
@@ -234,7 +235,8 @@ static int dg_dispatch_as_host(u32 context_id, struct vmci_datagram *dg)
dg_info->in_dg_host_queue = true;
dg_info->entry = dst_entry;
- memcpy(&dg_info->msg, dg, dg_size);
+ memcpy(&dg_info->msg, dg, VMCI_DG_HEADERSIZE);
+ memcpy(&dg_info->msg_payload, dg + 1, payload_size);

I think a direct assignment and a call to memcpy() is better in this case,
something like this:

dg_info->msg = *dg;
memcpy(&dg_info->msg_payload, dg + 1, dg->payload_size);

However, that `dg + 1` thing is making my eyes twitch. Where exactly are we
making sure that `dg` actually points to an area in memory bigger than
`sizeof(*dg)`?...

Also, we could also use struct_size() during allocation, some lines above:

- dg_info = kmalloc(sizeof(*dg_info) +
- (size_t) dg->payload_size, GFP_ATOMIC);
+ dg_info = kmalloc(struct_size(dg_info, msg_payload, dg->payload_size),
+ GFP_ATOMIC);

--
Gustavo

INIT_WORK(&dg_info->work, dg_delayed_dispatch);
schedule_work(&dg_info->work);