Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] malloc: Add check for top size corruption.

[Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>]

On 01/16/2018 01:05 PM, Istvan Kurucsai wrote:
> > Andreas already pointed out style issues.
> >
> > I'm somewhat surprised that we have accurate accounting in av->system_mem.
> >
> > Furthermore, for non-main arenas, I think the check should be against the
> > size of a single heap, or maybe the minimum of av->system_mem and that size.
>
> I thought about this and believe that we can ensure something more
> strict: that the end of the top chunk is the same as the end of the
> arena (contiguous main_arena case) or the heap (mmapped arena case),
> see below. Tests passed but I'm a bit uncertain if these invariants
> are always held.
>
>
> Ensure that the end of the top chunk is the same as
>   the end of the arena/heap.
>
>      * malloc/malloc.c (_int_malloc): Check top size.
> ---
>   malloc/malloc.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/malloc/malloc.c b/malloc/malloc.c
> index f5aafd2..fd0f001 100644
> --- a/malloc/malloc.c
> +++ b/malloc/malloc.c
> @@ -2251,6 +2251,33 @@ do_check_malloc_state (mstate av)
>   }
>   #endif
>
> +static bool
> +valid_top_chunk (mstate av, mchunkptr top)
> +{
> +  size_t size = chunksize(top);
> +
> +  assert (av);

I think we can drop that assert, it is implied by the pointer 
dereference in the subsequent assert.

> +  assert (av->top != initial_top (av));
> +
> +  if (av == &main_arena)
> +    {
> +      if ((contiguous (&main_arena)
> +          && __glibc_unlikely ((uintptr_t) top + size
> +                               != (uintptr_t) mp_.sbrk_base + av->system_mem))
> +          || (!contiguous (&main_arena)
> +              && __glibc_unlikely (size > av->system_mem)))
> +        return false;
> +    }
> +  else
> +    {
> +      heap_info *heap = heap_for_ptr (top);
> +      uintptr_t heap_end = (uintptr_t) heap + heap->size;
> +      if (__glibc_unlikely ((uintptr_t) top + size != heap_end))
> +        return false;
> +    }
> +
> +  return true;
> +}

I wonder if it is possible to write this in a slightly clearer way.

Maybe add a nested if (contiguous (&main_arena)) for the first branch, 
and directly return the value of the inner-most conditional?

Thanks,
Florian