On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 8:00 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <ja...@zx2c4.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Dmitry, > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 10:14 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyu...@google.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Jason, > > > > > > > > Thanks for looking into this. > > > > > > > > Reading clang docs for ubsan: > > > > > > > > https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.html > > > > -fsanitize=object-size: An attempt to potentially use bytes which the > > > > optimizer can determine are not part of the object being accessed. > > > > This will also detect some types of undefined behavior that may not > > > > directly access memory, but are provably incorrect given the size of > > > > the objects involved, such as invalid downcasts and calling methods on > > > > invalid pointers. These checks are made in terms of > > > > __builtin_object_size, and consequently may be able to detect more > > > > problems at higher optimization levels. > > > > > > > > From skimming though your description this seems to fall into > > > > "provably incorrect given the size of the objects involved". > > > > I guess it's one of these cases which trigger undefined behavior and > > > > compiler can e.g. remove all of this code assuming it will be never > > > > called at runtime and any branches leading to it will always branch in > > > > other directions, or something. > > > > > > Right that sort of makes sense, and I can imagine that in more general > > > cases the struct casting could lead to UB. But what has me scratching > > > my head is that syzbot couldn't reproduce. The cast happens every > > > time. What about that one time was special? Did the address happen to > > > fall on the border of a mapping? Is UBSAN non-deterministic as an > > > optimization? Or is there actually some mysterious UaF happening with > > > my usage of skbs that I shouldn't overlook? > > > > These UBSAN checks were just enabled recently. > > It's indeed super easy to trigger: 133083 VMs were crashed on this already: > > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=8f90d005ab2d22342b6d > > So it's one of the top crashers by now. > > Ahh, makes sense. So it is easily reproducible after all. > > You're still of the opinion that it's a false positive, right? I > shouldn't spend more cycles on this?
No, I am not saying this is a false positive. I think it's an undefined behavior. Either way, we need to resolve this one way or another to unblock testing the rest of the kernel, if not with a fix to wg, then with a fix to ubsan, or disable this check for kernel if kernel community decides we want to use and keep this type of C undefined behavior in the code base intentionally. So far I see only 2 "UBSAN: object-size-mismatch" reports on the dashboard: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/upstream So cleaning them up looks doable. Is there a way to restructure the code to not invoke undefined behavior? Kees, do you have any suggestions on how to proceed? This seems to stop testing of the whole kernel at the moment.
