From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755062AbbCaPWx (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Mar 2015 11:22:53 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:48905 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755046AbbCaPWs (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Mar 2015 11:22:48 -0400 Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 17:22:45 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Krzysztof Kolasa Cc: dsterba@suse.cz, tom.yeon@windriver.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: lz4: fix system halted at boot kernel x86_64 compressed lz4 Message-ID: <20150331152245.GB11455@kroah.com> References: <55114A1D.7030508@winsoft.pl> <20150325004458.GA20767@suse.cz> <55125E1B.3090506@winsoft.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55125E1B.3090506@winsoft.pl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 08:04:59AM +0100, Krzysztof Kolasa wrote: > On 25.03.2015 01:44, David Sterba wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 12:27:25PM +0100, Krzysztof Kolasa wrote: > >> lz4: fix system halted at boot kernel x86_64 compressed lz4 > >> > >> Decompression process ends with an error when loading kernel: > >> > >> Decoding failed > >> -- System halted > > Serious regression detected ... > > > >> This condition is probably not needed ( from the last commit d5e7caf) : > > The offending patch is on the way to stable trees, so it would be best > > to postpone it for now. > > > >> if( ... || > >> (op + COPYLENGTH) > oend) > >> goto _output_error > >> > >> macro LZ4_SECURE_COPY() tests op and does not copy any data > >> when op exceeds the value, decompression process is continued. > >> > >> added by analogy security for the ref: > >> > >> if ((ref + COPYLENGTH) > oend... > >> > >> to lz4_uncompress_unknownoutputsize(...) > > I did only a quick check, your analysis seems correct. Reviewing the lz4 > > patches is tedious as the kernel implementations do not match the > > upstream one line-by-line besides that I've missed the side effects of > > the macro. > > > Add patch source for review (send to LKML) : > --------------------- > > lz4: fix system halted at boot kernel x86_64 compressed lz4 > > Decompression process ends with an error when loading kernel: > > Decoding failed > -- System halted > > This condition is probably not needed ( from the last commit d5e7caf) : > > if( ... || > (op + COPYLENGTH) > oend) > goto _output_error > > macro LZ4_SECURE_COPY() tests op and does not copy any data > when op exceeds the value, decompression process is continued. > > added by analogy security for the ref: > > if ((ref + COPYLENGTH) > oend... > > to lz4_uncompress_unknownoutputsize(...) > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kolasa > --- > lib/lz4/lz4_decompress.c | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/lz4/lz4_decompress.c b/lib/lz4/lz4_decompress.c > index f0f5c5c..e248c4e 100644 > --- a/lib/lz4/lz4_decompress.c > +++ b/lib/lz4/lz4_decompress.c > @@ -139,8 +139,7 @@ static int lz4_uncompress(const char *source, char *dest, int osize) > /* Error: request to write beyond destination buffer */ > if (cpy > oend) > goto _output_error; > - if ((ref + COPYLENGTH) > oend || > - (op + COPYLENGTH) > oend) > + if ((ref + COPYLENGTH) > oend) > goto _output_error; > LZ4_SECURECOPY(ref, op, (oend - COPYLENGTH)); > while (op < cpy) > @@ -270,6 +269,8 @@ static int lz4_uncompress_unknownoutputsize(const char *source, char *dest, > if (cpy > oend - COPYLENGTH) { > if (cpy > oend) > goto _output_error; /* write outside of buf */ > + if ((ref + COPYLENGTH) > oend) > + goto _output_error; > > LZ4_SECURECOPY(ref, op, (oend - COPYLENGTH)); > while (op < cpy) > -- 2.3.3.dirty I'm confused, what is the problem here? What went wrong with the original patch that was posted, which is a mirror of what the lz4 code looks like "upstream"? Why make this change? Does it need to go into 4.0-final, or should I just revert the original patch? confused, greg k-h