This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [patch] Fix for heap overflow in wscanf (BZ 16618)
- From: Rich Felker <dalias at libc dot org>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Paul Eggert <eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu>, Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov at google dot com>, Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 23:46:57 -0500
- Subject: Re: [patch] Fix for heap overflow in wscanf (BZ 16618)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <87twz4xidl dot fsf at igel dot home> <CALoOobNFbi8csanuAGDwebQeojNWsSqj+6g6w-J94hZ8POOZiw at mail dot gmail dot com> <54D0F628 dot 3000808 at redhat dot com> <20150203180129 dot GP23507 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <54D10E16 dot 7050601 at redhat dot com> <20150203184139 dot GQ23507 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <54D11FE6 dot 9020905 at redhat dot com> <54D163CC dot 30008 at cs dot ucla dot edu> <20150204002749 dot GS23507 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <54D1A11D dot 3030102 at redhat dot com>
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 11:33:33PM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 02/03/2015 07:27 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 04:11:56PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> >> Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> >>> I'd read the POSIX wording differently.
> >> Although Rich's interpretation is correct for current POSIX, thanks
> >> to Eric Blake the next release of POSIX (Issue 8) is planned to
> >> change this, and to require 'free' to leave errno alone, which as I
> >> understand it is your preferred interpretation. Please see:
> >> http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=385
> >> Because of this, glibc 'free' should not set errno if the user
> >> invokes 'free' in a conforming way. Setting errno will be a
> >> conformance bug once Issue 8 comes out, and glibc should be fixed to
> >> conform well before that. Also, the glibc documentation should be
> >> changed to discuss this issue. I have filed a glibc bug report to
> >> that effect, here:
> >> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17924
> > Interesting. Unfortunately this makes it impossible for the
> > application to observe the "valid memory was unable to be freed"
> > condition that occurs when you can't split a vma. Formally, the memory
> > is still freed anyway, so it hardly matters, but it indicates a
> > critical situation where things are about to blow up for the
> > application (malloc no longer working, etc.) so conceivably an
> > application could want to detect and respond to the condition.
> Could you expand a bit on the split vma issue? I'm not familiar
> with that failure mode.
Sure. When malloc uses mmap to allocate large chunks, they usually end
up immediately adjacent and merged into a single vma (virtual memory
area). If each were separated by gaps, you'd hit the kernel's vma
limit per process (default: 64k vmas) very quickly. Some hardened
kernels might aim to keep gaps, but in general this is very expensive
and not done in the mainline kernel.
Anyway, if you have a mmap-obtained chunk X with other anonymous
private mmaps (from malloc or otherwise) directly adjacent to it on
both sides, they're initially a single vma. But when free calls
munmap, the vma has to be split into three parts: the middle one
comprising X that's about to be destroyed, and new vmas for the
now-discontiguous parts left on each side. The result is a net
adjustment of +1 to the nummber of vmas, which may exceed the kernel
limit. In that case munmap will fail. I believe this case actually
used to crash glibc (intentional abort) but I may be mistaken.
It should be easy to make a test case (on 64-bit systems at least) by
allocating 128k objects of size greater than the mmap threshold (128k
iirc) and then freeing all of the even-indexed ones.