GNU bug report logs -
#73474
Bug in factor utility of coreutils
Previous Next
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Your bug report
#73474: Bug in factor utility of coreutils
which was filed against the coreutils package, has been closed.
The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to 73474 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.
--
73474: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=73474
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems
[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]
[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]
On 25/09/2024 11:26, Артем Насонов wrote:
> To whom it may concern,
>
> I’m writing to let you know that I found an issue by fuzzing in
> coreutils in *factor* utility and want to report it. Here are some details:
>
> 1. Host architecture: Host it Debian x86_64 architecture
> 2. factor version: factor (GNU coreutils) 9.5.94-5cecd
> 3. Affected code area: src/factor.c:425
> 4. Steps to reproduce:
> Working on commit: 5cecd703e57b2e1301767d82cbe5bb01cae88472
>
> | export CC="clang-17"
> export CXX="clang++-17"
> export CFLAGS="-fsanitize=address,undefined -g"
> export LDFLAGS="-fsanitize=address,undefined -g"
> export
> UBSAN_OPTIONS=halt_on_error=1,abort_on_error=1,print_stacktrace=true,symbolize=true,print_stacktrace=1,report_error_type=1,symbolize=1
> ./bootstrap
> ./configure
> make
> ./src/factor 22222222222222222202111121111|
>
> 5. Bug details: during fuzzing with Undefined-Behaviour sanitizer we've
> got the following report:
>
> |//src/factor.c:425:3: runtime error: shift exponent 64 is too large for
> 64-bit type 'uintmax_t' (aka 'unsigned long')
> #0 0x56332975f862 in mod2
> /home/artemiin/Work/crash_confirmation/coreutils/src/factor.c:425:3
> #1 0x56332975ae54 in factor_using_pollard_rho2
> coreutils/src/factor.c:1665:12
> #2 0x563329750ab5 in factor coreutils/src/factor.c:2246:9
> #3 0x56332974eed6 in print_factors_single coreutils/src/factor.c:2454:3
> #4 0x56332974dd4c in print_factors coreutils/src/factor.c:2506:11
> #5 0x56332974d20d in main coreutils/src/factor.c:2647:15
> #6 0x7fa1933eb249 in __libc_start_call_main
> csu/../sysdeps/nptl/libc_start_call_main.h:58:16
> #7 0x7fa1933eb304 in __libc_start_main csu/../csu/libc-start.c:360:3
> #8 0x563329673630 in _start ( coreutils/src/factor+0x59630)
> (BuildId: 28b6f8b912cd8e99b886145a922476ec873a438b)/
> /|
> During analysis of this report, I found that there are some
> numbers, like 22222222222222222202111121111, which fall into the
> function mod2 and produce cnt=0.
> I suppose that you expect lsh2(number, 0) == number (shift by zero
> should not change the number). But inside the realization of that macro,
> with cnt=0 we have an operation (d0) >> (64 - (cnt)) which stands for
> d0>>64. This is generally undefined behavior - on some systems, the
> number d0 remains unchanged (but is expected to be 0) and on other
> systems it can be zero.
> So, generally, the result of this operation is undefined. Although
> the result is correct for the number 22222222222222222202111121111, it
> may not be true for other numbers or architectures.
>
> 6. Patch suggestion: I suggest just not to call lsh2 when cnt=0 to avoid
> this bug. My patch is in the attachment.
>
> Waiting for your reply,
> Best regards,
> Nasonov Artem
Nice one!
It seems better to move the checks within the macro to avoid any future issues.
I've also applied the same check to rsh2 in the attached.
I'll apply the attached later.
Marking this as done.
thanks!
Pádraig
[factor-undefined-shifts.diff (text/x-patch, attachment)]
[Message part 5 (message/rfc822, inline)]
[Message part 6 (text/plain, inline)]
To whom it may concern,
I’m writing to let you know that I found an issue by fuzzing in
coreutils in *factor* utility and want to report it. Here are some details:
1. Host architecture: Host it Debian x86_64 architecture
2. factor version: factor (GNU coreutils) 9.5.94-5cecd
3. Affected code area: src/factor.c:425
4. Steps to reproduce:
Working on commit: 5cecd703e57b2e1301767d82cbe5bb01cae88472
| export CC="clang-17"
export CXX="clang++-17"
export CFLAGS="-fsanitize=address,undefined -g"
export LDFLAGS="-fsanitize=address,undefined -g"
export
UBSAN_OPTIONS=halt_on_error=1,abort_on_error=1,print_stacktrace=true,symbolize=true,print_stacktrace=1,report_error_type=1,symbolize=1
./bootstrap
./configure
make
./src/factor 22222222222222222202111121111|
5. Bug details: during fuzzing with Undefined-Behaviour sanitizer we've
got the following report:
|//src/factor.c:425:3: runtime error: shift exponent 64 is too large for
64-bit type 'uintmax_t' (aka 'unsigned long')
#0 0x56332975f862 in mod2
/home/artemiin/Work/crash_confirmation/coreutils/src/factor.c:425:3
#1 0x56332975ae54 in factor_using_pollard_rho2
coreutils/src/factor.c:1665:12
#2 0x563329750ab5 in factor coreutils/src/factor.c:2246:9
#3 0x56332974eed6 in print_factors_single coreutils/src/factor.c:2454:3
#4 0x56332974dd4c in print_factors coreutils/src/factor.c:2506:11
#5 0x56332974d20d in main coreutils/src/factor.c:2647:15
#6 0x7fa1933eb249 in __libc_start_call_main
csu/../sysdeps/nptl/libc_start_call_main.h:58:16
#7 0x7fa1933eb304 in __libc_start_main csu/../csu/libc-start.c:360:3
#8 0x563329673630 in _start ( coreutils/src/factor+0x59630)
(BuildId: 28b6f8b912cd8e99b886145a922476ec873a438b)/
/|
During analysis of this report, I found that there are some
numbers, like 22222222222222222202111121111, which fall into the
function mod2 and produce cnt=0.
I suppose that you expect lsh2(number, 0) == number (shift by zero
should not change the number). But inside the realization of that macro,
with cnt=0 we have an operation (d0) >> (64 - (cnt)) which stands for
d0>>64. This is generally undefined behavior - on some systems, the
number d0 remains unchanged (but is expected to be 0) and on other
systems it can be zero.
So, generally, the result of this operation is undefined. Although
the result is correct for the number 22222222222222222202111121111, it
may not be true for other numbers or architectures.
6. Patch suggestion: I suggest just not to call lsh2 when cnt=0 to avoid
this bug. My patch is in the attachment.
Waiting for your reply,
Best regards,
Nasonov Artem
--
C уважением,
Артём Насонов
Специалист по анализу безопасности
Департамент анализа безопасности
Отдел динамического анализа
Эл. почта: anasonov <at> astralinux.ru
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Группа Астра
Сайт: astragroup.ru <https://astragroup.ru>
Группа Астра
[Message part 7 (text/html, inline)]
[factor.c.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
This bug report was last modified 236 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.