Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] VMCI: Fix memcpy() run-time warning in dg_dispatch_as_host()

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

On 1/8/24 01:33, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 08:40:00AM -0800, 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)
> >
> > 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[], a run time
> > warning is seen while fuzzing with Syzkaller.
> >
> > One possible way to fix the warning is to split the memcpy() into
> > two parts -- one -- direct assignment of msg and second taking care of payload.
> >
> > Gustavo quoted:
> > "Under FORTIFY_SOURCE we should not copy data across multiple members
> > in a structure."
> >
> > Reported-by: syzkaller <syzkaller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Suggested-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Suggested-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@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.
> >
> > v1->v2: ( Suggestions from Gustavo )
> >          1. Change the commit message false positive --> legitimate
> >             warning.
>
> The commit message is fine.
>
> Reviewed-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> But, I mean, it's not really "legitimate".  It meets the fortify source
> heuristic, but it's still a false positive.  Fortify source is
> *supposed* to find memory corruption bugs and this is not a memory
> corruption bug.  It's just that these days we have to treat foritify
> false positives as crashing bugs because people enable it and we have to
> fix it.
>
> Let's not pretend that fortify has helped us in this situation, it has
> caused us a problem.  It has taken valid code and created a crashing
> bug.  I'm not saying that the cost isn't worth it, but let's not pretend.

It's a "legitimate warning" (which differs from a "legitimate memory
corruption bug") in the sense that the feature is doing what it's
supposed to do: reporting a write beyond the boundaries of a field/member
in a structure.

Is that simple.  I don't see the "pretense" here.

BTW, is this _warning_ really causing a crash?

Thanks
--
Gustavo