From: "Andrew Fish" <afish@apple.com>
To: devel@edk2.groups.io, Mike Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
Cc: "lersek@redhat.com" <lersek@redhat.com>,
"Gao, Liming" <liming.gao@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 04/10] MdePkg/PiFirmwareFile: fix undefined behavior in FFS_FILE_SIZE
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 11:31:59 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6FA88780-622D-4788-BDF8-6C807D85D9D1@apple.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E92EE9817A31E24EB0585FDF735412F5B9C9A45F@ORSMSX113.amr.corp.intel.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7112 bytes --]
Mike,
I kind of ratholed us on alignment when Laszlo was more concerned about strict aliasing and the effective type rule. Sorry! I don't think your proposal fixes the effective type issue, and actually may make it worse if I'm correct.
It seems like the safest thing to do is read byte by byte and shift which I thought we did a long time ago?
The last point I poorly tried to make to Laszlo was I thought you could cast around the effective type issue in C99. If you think about it the union and the cast are both telling the compiler the intent is to break the effective type rule and that is the bigger point I was trying to make. Given my insomnia I used alignment examples that I understand better. If we try to convert Size to a UINT32 * I think that does trigger the effect type issue Laszlo referenced. So I was only debating the boundary of enforcement of the effect type rule using alignment as a confusing example.
I was actually writing a mail to some people that sit on the C/C++ standards committee that are UB experts to get some clarification when you sent this mail. I'm concerned I'm conflating behavior with what the standard states, and may have some recency bias with solving alignment issues that makes me think the cast should work.
I'm basically asking if this code pedantic conforms to C99 and C11:
EFI_COMMON_SECTION_HEADER gSec = { { 0x01, 0x02, 0x3 }, 0x10 };
return *(UINT32 *)gSec.Size & 0x00ffffff;
I ran the clang static analyzer and runtime ubsan on the above code and it did not complain (I force strict aliasing via -fstrict-aliasing, and I'm using the Sys V ABI since this is just the command line compiler on my Mac).
Thanks,
Andrew Fish
> On Apr 17, 2019, at 10:52 AM, Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Laszlo,
>
> I have been following this thread. I think the style
> used here to access the 3 array elements to build the
> 24-bit size value is the best approach. I prefer this
> over adding the union.
>
> I agree there is a read overrun issue when using UINT32 to
> read the Size[3] array contents.
>
> I do not think this is a real issue in practice, because the
> Size[3] array accessed is part of the larger
> EFI_COMMON_SECTION_HEADER structure. However, we always should
> clean up code to not do any read/write overruns without this
> type of analysis and the need to keep track of exceptions.
>
> There is a related set of code in the BaseLib for Read/Write
> Unaligned24().
>
> UINT32
> EFIAPI
> ReadUnaligned24 (
> IN CONST UINT32 *Buffer
> );
>
> UINT32
> EFIAPI
> WriteUnaligned24 (
> OUT UINT32 *Buffer,
> IN UINT32 Value
> );
>
> This API does not get flagged for read overrun issues because
> a UINT32 is passed in. However, for CPU archs that required aligned
> access, the 24-bit value must be read in pieces. This is why there
> are 2 different implementations:
>
> IA32/X64
> ========
> UINT32
> EFIAPI
> ReadUnaligned24 (
> IN CONST UINT32 *Buffer
> )
> {
> ASSERT (Buffer != NULL);
>
> return *Buffer & 0xffffff;
> }
>
>
> ARM/AARCH64
> ============
> UINT32
> EFIAPI
> ReadUnaligned24 (
> IN CONST UINT32 *Buffer
> )
> {
> ASSERT (Buffer != NULL);
>
> return (UINT32)(
> ReadUnaligned16 ((UINT16*)Buffer) |
> (((UINT8*)Buffer)[2] << 16)
> );
> }
>
> The ARM/ARCH64 implementation is clean because it does
> not do a read overrun of the 24-bit field. The IA32/X64
> implementation may have an issue because it reads a 32-bit
> value and strips the upper 8 bits.
>
> If we apply the same technique to the Size field of
> EFI_COMMON_SECTION_HEADER, then the 24-bit value would be
> built from reading only the 3 bytes of the array.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mike
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> [mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>]
>> On Behalf Of Laszlo Ersek
>> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 4:31 PM
>> To: edk2-devel-groups-io <devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>>
>> Cc: Gao, Liming <liming.gao@intel.com <mailto:liming.gao@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael
>> D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com <mailto:michael.d.kinney@intel.com>>
>> Subject: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 04/10]
>> MdePkg/PiFirmwareFile: fix undefined behavior in
>> FFS_FILE_SIZE
>>
>> Accessing "EFI_FFS_FILE_HEADER.Size", which is of type
>> UINT8[3], through a
>> (UINT32*), is undefined behavior. Fix it by accessing
>> the array elements
>> individually.
>>
>> (We can't use a union here, unfortunately, as easily as
>> with
>> "EFI_COMMON_SECTION_HEADER", given the fields in
>> "EFI_FFS_FILE_HEADER".)
>>
>> Cc: Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>
>> Cc: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
>> Bugzilla:
>> https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1710
>> Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> MdePkg/Include/Pi/PiFirmwareFile.h | 10 +++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/MdePkg/Include/Pi/PiFirmwareFile.h
>> b/MdePkg/Include/Pi/PiFirmwareFile.h
>> index 4fce8298d1c0..0668f3fa9af4 100644
>> --- a/MdePkg/Include/Pi/PiFirmwareFile.h
>> +++ b/MdePkg/Include/Pi/PiFirmwareFile.h
>> @@ -174,18 +174,26 @@ typedef struct {
>> /// If FFS_ATTRIB_LARGE_FILE is not set then
>> EFI_FFS_FILE_HEADER is used.
>> ///
>> UINT64 ExtendedSize;
>> } EFI_FFS_FILE_HEADER2;
>>
>> #define IS_FFS_FILE2(FfsFileHeaderPtr) \
>> (((((EFI_FFS_FILE_HEADER *) (UINTN)
>> FfsFileHeaderPtr)->Attributes) & FFS_ATTRIB_LARGE_FILE)
>> == FFS_ATTRIB_LARGE_FILE)
>>
>> +#define FFS_FILE_SIZE_ARRAY(FfsFileHeaderPtr) \
>> + (((EFI_FFS_FILE_HEADER *) (UINTN)
>> (FfsFileHeaderPtr))->Size)
>> +
>> +#define FFS_FILE_SIZE_ELEMENT(FfsFileHeaderPtr, Index)
>> \
>> + ((UINT32) FFS_FILE_SIZE_ARRAY
>> (FfsFileHeaderPtr)[(Index)])
>> +
>> #define FFS_FILE_SIZE(FfsFileHeaderPtr) \
>> - ((UINT32) (*((UINT32 *) ((EFI_FFS_FILE_HEADER *)
>> (UINTN) FfsFileHeaderPtr)->Size) & 0x00ffffff))
>> + ((FFS_FILE_SIZE_ELEMENT ((FfsFileHeaderPtr), 0) <<
>> 0) | \
>> + (FFS_FILE_SIZE_ELEMENT ((FfsFileHeaderPtr), 1) <<
>> 8) | \
>> + (FFS_FILE_SIZE_ELEMENT ((FfsFileHeaderPtr), 2) <<
>> 16))
>>
>> #define FFS_FILE2_SIZE(FfsFileHeaderPtr) \
>> ((UINT32) (((EFI_FFS_FILE_HEADER2 *) (UINTN)
>> FfsFileHeaderPtr)->ExtendedSize))
>>
>> typedef UINT8 EFI_SECTION_TYPE;
>>
>> ///
>> /// Pseudo type. It is used as a wild card when
>> retrieving sections.
>> --
>> 2.19.1.3.g30247aa5d201
>>
>>
>>
>> -=-=-=-=-=-=
>> Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this
>> group.
>>
>> View/Reply Online (#38989):
>> https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/38989
>> Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/31070304/1643496 <https://groups.io/mt/31070304/1643496>
>> Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel+owner@edk2.groups.io>
>> Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub <https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub>
>> [michael.d.kinney@intel.com <mailto:michael.d.kinney@intel.com>]
>> -=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 63104 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-17 18:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-12 23:31 [PATCH 00/10] patches for some warnings raised by "RH covscan" Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-12 23:31 ` [PATCH 01/10] MdePkg/PiFirmwareFile: express IS_SECTION2 in terms of SECTION_SIZE Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-15 17:01 ` [edk2-devel] " Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2019-04-12 23:31 ` [PATCH 02/10] MdePkg/PiFirmwareFile: fix undefined behavior in SECTION_SIZE Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-14 7:19 ` [edk2-devel] " Jordan Justen
2019-04-15 16:15 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-16 8:28 ` Liming Gao
2019-04-16 9:04 ` Jordan Justen
2019-04-16 10:59 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-16 16:50 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2019-04-17 10:08 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-16 18:48 ` Jordan Justen
2019-04-16 23:25 ` Andrew Fish
2019-04-17 10:29 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-17 11:44 ` Andrew Fish
2019-04-17 14:59 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-17 19:35 ` Jordan Justen
2019-04-18 9:38 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-18 15:18 ` Liming Gao
2019-04-17 10:01 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-12 23:31 ` [PATCH 03/10] BaseTools/PiFirmwareFile: " Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-12 23:31 ` [PATCH 04/10] MdePkg/PiFirmwareFile: fix undefined behavior in FFS_FILE_SIZE Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-15 17:23 ` [edk2-devel] " Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2019-04-17 17:52 ` Michael D Kinney
2019-04-17 18:31 ` Michael D Kinney
2019-04-18 9:06 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-17 18:31 ` Andrew Fish [this message]
2019-04-17 18:36 ` Michael D Kinney
2019-04-18 8:48 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-18 8:45 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-18 23:12 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-18 17:20 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2019-04-18 17:59 ` Michael D Kinney
2019-04-18 18:12 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2019-04-12 23:31 ` [PATCH 05/10] OvmfPkg/Sec: fix out-of-bounds reads Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-15 17:24 ` [edk2-devel] " Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2019-04-12 23:31 ` [PATCH 06/10] OvmfPkg/QemuVideoDxe: avoid arithmetic on null pointer Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-12 23:31 ` [PATCH 07/10] OvmfPkg/AcpiPlatformDxe: suppress invalid "deref of undef pointer" warning Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-15 17:26 ` [edk2-devel] " Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2019-04-12 23:31 ` [PATCH 08/10] OvmfPkg: suppress "Value stored to ... is never read" analyzer warnings Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-14 8:03 ` [edk2-devel] " Jordan Justen
2019-04-15 16:25 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-16 9:26 ` Jordan Justen
2019-04-16 11:44 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-12 23:31 ` [PATCH 09/10] OvmfPkg/AcpiPlatformDxe: catch theoretical nullptr deref in Xen code Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-15 17:28 ` [edk2-devel] " Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2019-04-12 23:31 ` [PATCH 10/10] OvmfPkg/BasePciCapLib: suppress invalid "nullptr deref" warning Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-15 17:31 ` [edk2-devel] " Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2019-04-16 11:01 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-12 23:36 ` [PATCH 00/10] patches for some warnings raised by "RH covscan" Ard Biesheuvel
2019-04-15 16:16 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-18 14:20 ` [edk2-devel] " Laszlo Ersek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-list from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=6FA88780-622D-4788-BDF8-6C807D85D9D1@apple.com \
--to=devel@edk2.groups.io \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox