[PATCH v4] x86/kexec: fix potential cmem->ranges out of bounds

[Coiby Xu]

On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 05:58:01PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
>On 05/09/25 at 12:04pm, Coiby Xu wrote:
>> On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 10:59:59PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
[...]
>> >
>> > Do we know why this has appeared at such a late date?  The reporter
>> > must be doing something rare.
>>
>> The UBSAN warning happens because flexible array members annotated with
>> __counted_by are accessed without assigning an array element count i.e.
>> crash_mem->ranges[0] is accessed without setting max_nr_ranges after
>> vzalloc,
>>
>>     // include/linux/crash_core.h
>>     struct crash_mem {
>>     	unsigned int max_nr_ranges;
>>     	unsigned int nr_ranges;
>>     	struct range ranges[] __counted_by(max_nr_ranges);
>>     };
>>
>> The bad commit was introduced in 2021 but only recent gcc-15 supports
>> __counted_by. That's why we don't see this UBSAN warning until this
>> year. And although this UBSAN warning is scary enough, fortunately it
>> doesn't cause a real problem.
>>
>> >
>> > Baoquan, please re-review this?
>> >
>> > A -stable backport is clearly required.  A Fixes: would be nice, but I
>> > assume this goes back a long time so it isn't worth spending a lot of
>> > time working out when this was introduced.
>>
>> So I believe the correct fix should be as follows,
>
>Thanks for testing and investigation into these. Could you arrange this
>into formal patches based on your testing and analysis?
>
>It would be great if you can include Fuqiang's patch since it has
>conflict with your LUKS patch. This can facilitate patch merging for
>Andrew. Thanks in advance.

Sure, I'll ask Andrew if a separate patch is needed because both my
Fuqiang's patch and the kdump LUKS support patches fix the UBSAN warning
as a by-product. And I'll resolve any conflict. Meanwhile, I'll need
more time to investigate Fuqiang's patch. For example, because of
commit 6dff31597264 ("crash_core: fix and simplify the logic of
crash_exclude_mem_range()"), cmem->ranges out of bounds doesn't seem to
happen any more because now -ENOMEM will be returned instead.

-- 
Best regards,
Coiby