diff options
author | Arjun Shankar <arjun.is@lostca.se> | 2018-01-18 16:47:06 +0000 |
---|---|---|
committer | Arjun Shankar <arjun@redhat.com> | 2018-01-18 17:55:45 +0100 |
commit | 8e448310d74b283c5cd02b9ed7fb997b47bf9b22 (patch) | |
tree | a5cb99be6773177cf14683cbf10ecbc34a7dc82c /malloc/malloc.c | |
parent | 80647883cf5847c8b6b0197e9703eb04222496b6 (diff) | |
download | glibc-8e448310d74b283c5cd02b9ed7fb997b47bf9b22.zip glibc-8e448310d74b283c5cd02b9ed7fb997b47bf9b22.tar.gz glibc-8e448310d74b283c5cd02b9ed7fb997b47bf9b22.tar.bz2 |
Fix integer overflows in internal memalign and malloc functions [BZ #22343]
When posix_memalign is called with an alignment less than MALLOC_ALIGNMENT
and a requested size close to SIZE_MAX, it falls back to malloc code
(because the alignment of a block returned by malloc is sufficient to
satisfy the call). In this case, an integer overflow in _int_malloc leads
to posix_memalign incorrectly returning successfully.
Upon fixing this and writing a somewhat thorough regression test, it was
discovered that when posix_memalign is called with an alignment larger than
MALLOC_ALIGNMENT (so it uses _int_memalign instead) and a requested size
close to SIZE_MAX, a different integer overflow in _int_memalign leads to
posix_memalign incorrectly returning successfully.
Both integer overflows affect other memory allocation functions that use
_int_malloc (one affected malloc in x86) or _int_memalign as well.
This commit fixes both integer overflows. In addition to this, it adds a
regression test to guard against false successful allocations by the
following memory allocation functions when called with too-large allocation
sizes and, where relevant, various valid alignments:
malloc, realloc, calloc, reallocarray, memalign, posix_memalign,
aligned_alloc, valloc, and pvalloc.
Diffstat (limited to 'malloc/malloc.c')
-rw-r--r-- | malloc/malloc.c | 30 |
1 files changed, 22 insertions, 8 deletions
diff --git a/malloc/malloc.c b/malloc/malloc.c index f5aafd2..7889fb1 100644 --- a/malloc/malloc.c +++ b/malloc/malloc.c @@ -1224,14 +1224,21 @@ nextchunk-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ MINSIZE : \ ((req) + SIZE_SZ + MALLOC_ALIGN_MASK) & ~MALLOC_ALIGN_MASK) -/* Same, except also perform argument check */ - -#define checked_request2size(req, sz) \ - if (REQUEST_OUT_OF_RANGE (req)) { \ - __set_errno (ENOMEM); \ - return 0; \ - } \ - (sz) = request2size (req); +/* Same, except also perform an argument and result check. First, we check + that the padding done by request2size didn't result in an integer + overflow. Then we check (using REQUEST_OUT_OF_RANGE) that the resulting + size isn't so large that a later alignment would lead to another integer + overflow. */ +#define checked_request2size(req, sz) \ +({ \ + (sz) = request2size (req); \ + if (((sz) < (req)) \ + || REQUEST_OUT_OF_RANGE (sz)) \ + { \ + __set_errno (ENOMEM); \ + return 0; \ + } \ +}) /* --------------- Physical chunk operations --------------- @@ -4678,6 +4685,13 @@ _int_memalign (mstate av, size_t alignment, size_t bytes) */ + /* Check for overflow. */ + if (nb > SIZE_MAX - alignment - MINSIZE) + { + __set_errno (ENOMEM); + return 0; + } + /* Call malloc with worst case padding to hit alignment. */ m = (char *) (_int_malloc (av, nb + alignment + MINSIZE)); |