[PATCH v4] x86: Prevent SIGSEGV in memcmp-sse2 when data is concurrently modified [BZ #29863]

[H.J. Lu]

On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 10:52 AM Noah Goldstein <goldstein.w.n@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In the case of INCORRECT usage of `memcmp(a, b, N)` where `a` and `b`
> are concurrently modified as `memcmp` runs, there can be a SIGSEGV
> in `L(ret_nonzero_vec_end_0)` because the sequential logic
> assumes that `(rdx - 32 + rax)` is a positive 32-bit integer.
>
> To be clear, this change does not mean the usage of `memcmp` is
> supported.  The program behaviour is undefined (UB) in the
> presence of data races, and `memcmp` is incorrect when the values
> of `a` and/or `b` are modified concurrently (data race). This UB
> may manifest itself as a SIGSEGV. That being said, if we can
> allow the idiomatic use cases, like those in yottadb with
> opportunistic concurrency control (OCC), to execute without a
> SIGSEGV, at no cost to regular use cases, then we can aim to
> minimize harm to those existing users.
>
> The fix replaces a 32-bit `addl %edx, %eax` with the 64-bit variant
> `addq %rdx, %rax`. The 1-extra byte of code size from using the
> 64-bit instruction doesn't contribute to overall code size as the
> next target is aligned and has multiple bytes of `nop` padding
> before it. As well all the logic between the add and `ret` still
> fits in the same fetch block, so the cost of this change is
> basically zero.
>
> The relevant sequential logic can be seen in the following
> pseudo-code:
> ```
>     /*
>      * rsi = a
>      * rdi = b
>      * rdx = len - 32
>      */
>     /* cmp a[0:15] and b[0:15]. Since length is known to be [17, 32]
>     in this case, this check is also assumed to cover a[0:(31 - len)]
>     and b[0:(31 - len)].  */
>     movups  (%rsi), %xmm0
>     movups  (%rdi), %xmm1
>     PCMPEQ  %xmm0, %xmm1
>     pmovmskb %xmm1, %eax
>     subl    %ecx, %eax
>     jnz L(END_NEQ)
>
>     /* cmp a[len-16:len-1] and b[len-16:len-1].  */
>     movups  16(%rsi, %rdx), %xmm0
>     movups  16(%rdi, %rdx), %xmm1
>     PCMPEQ  %xmm0, %xmm1
>     pmovmskb %xmm1, %eax
>     subl    %ecx, %eax
>     jnz L(END_NEQ2)
>     ret
>
> L(END2):
>     /* Position first mismatch.  */
>     bsfl    %eax, %eax
>
>     /* The sequential version is able to assume this value is a
>     positive 32-bit value because the first check included bytes in
>     range a[0:(31 - len)] and b[0:(31 - len)] so `eax` must be
>     greater than `31 - len` so the minimum value of `edx` + `eax` is
>     `(len - 32) + (32 - len) >= 0`. In the concurrent case, however,
>     `a` or `b` could have been changed so a mismatch in `eax` less or
>     equal than `(31 - len)` is possible (the new low bound is `(16 -
>     len)`. This can result in a negative 32-bit signed integer, which
>     when zero extended to 64-bits is a random large value this out
>     out of bounds. */
>     addl %edx, %eax
>
>     /* Crash here because 32-bit negative number in `eax` zero
>     extends to out of bounds 64-bit offset.  */
>     movzbl  16(%rdi, %rax), %ecx
>     movzbl  16(%rsi, %rax), %eax
> ```
>
> This fix is quite simple, just make the `addl %edx, %eax` 64 bit (i.e
> `addq %rdx, %rax`). This prevents the 32-bit zero extension
> and since `eax` is still a low bound of `16 - len` the `rdx + rax`
> is bound by `(len - 32) - (16 - len) >= -16`. Since we have a
> fixed offset of `16` in the memory access this must be in bounds.
> ---
>  sysdeps/x86_64/multiarch/memcmp-sse2.S | 12 +++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/sysdeps/x86_64/multiarch/memcmp-sse2.S b/sysdeps/x86_64/multiarch/memcmp-sse2.S
> index afd450d020..51bc9344f0 100644
> --- a/sysdeps/x86_64/multiarch/memcmp-sse2.S
> +++ b/sysdeps/x86_64/multiarch/memcmp-sse2.S
> @@ -308,7 +308,17 @@ L(ret_nonzero_vec_end_0):
>         setg    %dl
>         leal    -1(%rdx, %rdx), %eax
>  #  else
> -       addl    %edx, %eax
> +       /* Use `addq` instead of `addl` here so that even if `rax` + `rdx`
> +       is negative value of the sum will be usable as a 64-bit offset
> +       (negative 32-bit numbers zero-extend to a large and often
> +       out-of-bounds 64-bit offsets).  Note that `rax` + `rdx` >= 0 is
> +       an invariant when `memcmp` is used correctly, but if the input
> +       strings `rsi`/`rdi` are concurrently modified as the function
> +       runs (there is a Data-Race) it is possible for `rax` + `rdx` to
> +       be negative.  Given that there is virtually no extra to cost
> +       using `addq` instead of `addl` we may as well protect the
> +       data-race case.  */
> +       addq    %rdx, %rax
>         movzbl  (VEC_SIZE * -1 + SIZE_OFFSET)(%rsi, %rax), %ecx
>         movzbl  (VEC_SIZE * -1 + SIZE_OFFSET)(%rdi, %rax), %eax
>         subl    %ecx, %eax
> --
> 2.34.1
>

LGTM.

Thanks.

-- 
H.J.