From: "Michael D Kinney" <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
To: "devel@edk2.groups.io" <devel@edk2.groups.io>,
"lersek@redhat.com" <lersek@redhat.com>,
"Kinney, Michael D" <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
Cc: "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 17:52:27 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E92EE9817A31E24EB0585FDF735412F5B9C9A45F@ORSMSX113.amr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190412233128.4756-5-lersek@redhat.com>
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]
> On Behalf Of Laszlo Ersek
> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 4:31 PM
> To: edk2-devel-groups-io <devel@edk2.groups.io>
> Cc: Gao, Liming <liming.gao@intel.com>; Kinney, Michael
> D <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
> Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io
> Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub
> [michael.d.kinney@intel.com]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-17 17:52 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 [this message]
2019-04-17 18:31 ` Michael D Kinney
2019-04-18 9:06 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-04-17 18:31 ` Andrew Fish
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=E92EE9817A31E24EB0585FDF735412F5B9C9A45F@ORSMSX113.amr.corp.intel.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