Message ID | 20181026232409.16100-1-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | runtime format string checking | expand |
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> wrote: > This is a resurrection of something I sent out about a year ago. In > the relatively few places where we use a non-literal as format string, > we can annotate the source with a fmtcheck() call that will (a) at > build time, allow the compiler to check the variadic arguments against > the template, and (b) at runtime, check that the format specifiers > present in the actual format string match those in the template (and > if not, WARN and use the template to ensure runtime type safety). > > Finding places to annotate is just > > make -j8 KCFLAGS='-Wformat-nonliteral' > > So far, in about half the places I looked, one might as well get > completely rid of the non-literal format string. Agreed. When I was still updating format string sites regularly, I had a couple "just make the build quiet" patches to do this: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git/commit/?h=kspp/format-security&id=ce9b938574042d09920650cb3c63ec29658edc87 The above seemed to "noisy" to send, but perhaps we should just land it anyway. They really _should_ be const. https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git/commit/?h=kspp/format-security&id=b7dcfc8f48caaafcc423e5793f7ef61b9bb5c458 This one covers cases where the pointer is pointing to a const string, so really there's no sense in injecting the "%s", but I was collecting them to make real ones stand out. > Patches 5,6,7 are > some examples of where one might add fmtcheck() calls. I don't think > we can get to a state where we can unconditionally add > -Wformat-nonliteral to the build, but I think there's a lot of > low-hanging fruit. How much work do you think it'd take to get to a format-nonliteral-clean build? I think it's worth doing the work if it's not totally intractable. -Kees > > This is on top of Miguel's compiler attributes series [1], which I > hope will land in mainline soon. > > [1] https://github.com/ojeda/linux.git tags/compiler-attributes-for-linus-4.20-rc1 > > Rasmus Villemoes (7): > compiler_attributes.h: add __attribute__((format_arg)) shorthand > lib/vsprintf.c: add fmtcheck utility > kernel.h: implement fmtmatch() wrapper around fmtcheck() > lib/test_printf.c: add a few fmtcheck() test cases > kernel/kthread.c: do runtime check of format string in > kthread_create_on_cpu() > nfs: use fmtcheck() in root_nfs_data > drivers: hwmon: add runtime format string checking > > drivers/hwmon/hwmon.c | 3 +- > fs/nfs/nfsroot.c | 2 +- > include/linux/compiler_attributes.h | 13 ++++++ > include/linux/kernel.h | 25 +++++++++++ > kernel/kthread.c | 4 +- > lib/Kconfig.debug | 9 ++++ > lib/test_printf.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++ > lib/vsprintf.c | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 8 files changed, 160 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.19.1.6.gbde171bbf5 >
On 2018-10-30 21:58, Kees Cook wrote: > On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Rasmus Villemoes > <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> wrote: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git/commit/?h=kspp/format-security&id=ce9b938574042d09920650cb3c63ec29658edc87 > The above seemed to "noisy" to send, but perhaps we should just land > it anyway. They really _should_ be const. > Isn't that 063246641d4a9e9de84a2466fbad50112faf88dc in mainline ;) ? BTW, I don't agree with all the changes in there: For auto variables, this - const char *cur_drv, *drv = "acpi-cpufreq"; + const char drv[] = "acpi-cpufreq"; + const char *cur_drv; makes gcc actually generate that string on the stack instead of just referring to an anonymous object in .rodata; one gets code gen like +: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax +: 48 b8 61 63 70 69 2d movabs $0x7570632d69706361,%rax # "acpi-cpu" +: 63 70 75 +: c7 44 24 0b 66 72 65 movl $0x71657266,0xb(%rsp) # "freq" +: 71 +: c6 44 24 0f 00 movb $0x0,0xf(%rsp) "\0" +: 48 89 44 24 03 mov %rax,0x3(%rsp) It's not the-end-of-the-world-horrible, but it's better avoided, especially for patches that are not supposed to change anything. And longer strings would of course produce even more gunk like the above. A better fix which also silences -Wformat-security is to declare the variable itself const, i.e. const char *const drv = "acpi-cpufreq". Yes, gcc should be able to infer the constness of drv from the fact that it's never assigned to elsewhere in the function... I think I saw that on some gcc todo list at some point. > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git/commit/?h=kspp/format-security&id=b7dcfc8f48caaafcc423e5793f7ef61b9bb5c458 > This one covers cases where the pointer is pointing to a const string, > so really there's no sense in injecting the "%s", but I was collecting > them to make real ones stand out. I don't agree. Yes, a human can verify that _currently_, only "pencrypt" and "pdecrypt" can ever reach pcrypt_sysfs_add(). But without the compiler being smart enough to do that, one will never know if some new caller shows up, or one of those literals grows a % for some reason. Adding "%s" doesn't cost much, especially not in cases (like this one) where the fmt+args end up at kobject_set_name_vargs - for a "%s" + literal that does a (succesful) kstrdup_const(), so we never even hit the vsnprintf() engine. >> Patches 5,6,7 are >> some examples of where one might add fmtcheck() calls. I don't think >> we can get to a state where we can unconditionally add >> -Wformat-nonliteral to the build, but I think there's a lot of >> low-hanging fruit. > > How much work do you think it'd take to get to a > format-nonliteral-clean build? I think it's worth doing the work if > it's not totally intractable. Probably less than the VLA removal. But it kind of depends on which tools one allows. I can't see how to do it without something like fmtcheck() to annotate certain places (e.g. the nfs example). Maybe a no_fmtcheck() to annotate places which have been manually verified [modulo the above "but that may change..."] would also be needed (no_fmtcheck would be the same as fmtcheck for at !CONFIG_FMTCHECK kernel), similar to how we have no_printk. I kind of agree with Guenther that the hwmon example is a bad one. It would be better to have the compiler check all those string literals against a pattern at build time. Probably the format template plugin can be extended to apply to any "const char*" declaration, not just those sitting inside structs. But I'd rather get fmtcheck() in first before returning to work on that plugin. Rasmus
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 3:06 PM, Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> wrote: > On 2018-10-30 21:58, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Rasmus Villemoes >> <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> wrote: >> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git/commit/?h=kspp/format-security&id=ce9b938574042d09920650cb3c63ec29658edc87 >> The above seemed to "noisy" to send, but perhaps we should just land >> it anyway. They really _should_ be const. >> > > Isn't that 063246641d4a9e9de84a2466fbad50112faf88dc in mainline ;) ? Oh, hah, so it is. So long ago I forgot. :P > BTW, I don't agree with all the changes in there: For auto variables, this > > - const char *cur_drv, *drv = "acpi-cpufreq"; > + const char drv[] = "acpi-cpufreq"; > + const char *cur_drv; > > makes gcc actually generate that string on the stack instead of just > referring to an anonymous object in .rodata; one gets code gen like > > +: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax > +: 48 b8 61 63 70 69 2d movabs $0x7570632d69706361,%rax # "acpi-cpu" > +: 63 70 75 > +: c7 44 24 0b 66 72 65 movl $0x71657266,0xb(%rsp) # "freq" > +: 71 > +: c6 44 24 0f 00 movb $0x0,0xf(%rsp) "\0" > +: 48 89 44 24 03 mov %rax,0x3(%rsp) Oh that is nasty. Ugh. I hate the "const but not really ha ha" optimizations. :( > It's not the-end-of-the-world-horrible, but it's better avoided, > especially for patches that are not supposed to change anything. And > longer strings would of course produce even more gunk like the above. > A better fix which also silences -Wformat-security is to declare the > variable itself const, i.e. > > const char *const drv = "acpi-cpufreq". Yes, that would be much better. Seems like we could do a really easy Coccinelle script to fix all of those? @@ identifier VAR; expression STRING; @@ - const char VAR[] + const char * const VAR = STRING; yields: 517 files changed, 890 insertions(+), 891 deletions(-) Worth doing at the end of -rc2? > Yes, gcc should be able to infer the constness of drv from the fact that > it's never assigned to elsewhere in the function... I think I saw that > on some gcc todo list at some point. If you find that bug, I'll add it to my gcc bug tracking list. :P >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git/commit/?h=kspp/format-security&id=b7dcfc8f48caaafcc423e5793f7ef61b9bb5c458 >> This one covers cases where the pointer is pointing to a const string, >> so really there's no sense in injecting the "%s", but I was collecting >> them to make real ones stand out. > > I don't agree. Yes, a human can verify that _currently_, only "pencrypt" > and "pdecrypt" can ever reach pcrypt_sysfs_add(). But without the > compiler being smart enough to do that, one will never know if some new > caller shows up, or one of those literals grows a % for some reason. > Adding "%s" doesn't cost much, especially not in cases (like this one) > where the fmt+args end up at kobject_set_name_vargs - for a "%s" + > literal that does a (succesful) kstrdup_const(), so we never even hit > the vsnprintf() engine. Okay, then I'll forward this to akpm maybe? >>> Patches 5,6,7 are >>> some examples of where one might add fmtcheck() calls. I don't think >>> we can get to a state where we can unconditionally add >>> -Wformat-nonliteral to the build, but I think there's a lot of >>> low-hanging fruit. >> >> How much work do you think it'd take to get to a >> format-nonliteral-clean build? I think it's worth doing the work if >> it's not totally intractable. > > Probably less than the VLA removal. But it kind of depends on which > tools one allows. I can't see how to do it without something like > fmtcheck() to annotate certain places (e.g. the nfs example). Maybe a > no_fmtcheck() to annotate places which have been manually verified > [modulo the above "but that may change..."] would also be needed > (no_fmtcheck would be the same as fmtcheck for at !CONFIG_FMTCHECK > kernel), similar to how we have no_printk. > > I kind of agree with Guenther that the hwmon example is a bad one. It > would be better to have the compiler check all those string literals > against a pattern at build time. Probably the format template plugin can > be extended to apply to any "const char*" declaration, not just those > sitting inside structs. But I'd rather get fmtcheck() in first before > returning to work on that plugin. Yeah, fair. -Kees