Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
109 lines (88 loc) · 9.28 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

109 lines (88 loc) · 9.28 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for facebook/yoga

Mitigation Strategy: Resource Monitoring and Throttling (within Yoga Calculation)

Description:

  1. Identify Calculation Entry Point: Precisely locate the code where the Yoga.Node.create() (or equivalent for your language binding) and node.calculateLayout() calls are made. This is where the Yoga calculation begins.
  2. Implement Timeout: Wrap the node.calculateLayout() call (and potentially the node creation if it's also resource-intensive) within a timeout mechanism. Use language-specific features (e.g., Promise.race with a timeout promise in JavaScript, threading.Timer in Python).
  3. Handle Timeout: If the timeout expires before calculateLayout() completes, you must have a way to interrupt the calculation. This is the tricky part and might require:
    • Yoga Modification (If Necessary and Possible): Ideally, Yoga would expose an API to cancel an ongoing calculation. If it doesn't, and you must have precise control, you might need to (carefully!) modify the Yoga source code to add a cancellation mechanism (e.g., a flag that's checked periodically during the calculation). This is a last resort and requires deep understanding of Yoga's internals.
    • Separate Process/Thread (Recommended): Run the Yoga calculation in a separate process or thread. This allows you to forcefully terminate the process/thread if it times out, without affecting the main application thread. This is the recommended approach for robust interruption.
    • Asynchronous Calculation (If Supported): If your Yoga language binding supports asynchronous calculations (e.g., using promises or callbacks), use this mechanism to avoid blocking the main thread and to provide a natural point for cancellation.
  4. Handle Interruption: After interrupting the calculation (either via a Yoga API or by terminating the process/thread), ensure you clean up any resources and handle the error gracefully (log, fallback layout, etc.).
  5. Resource Monitoring (Advanced - Requires Yoga Modification or External Tools): Ideally, you'd monitor CPU and memory usage during the Yoga calculation. This is difficult without modifying Yoga itself (to expose internal metrics) or using external profiling tools that can attach to the process. If resource usage exceeds thresholds, trigger the interruption mechanism.
  6. Unit/Integration Tests: Create tests that simulate long-running layout calculations (e.g., by creating deeply nested layouts) and verify that the timeout and interruption mechanisms work correctly.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Denial of Service (DoS) via Complex Layouts (High Severity): Provides a direct way to limit the time and resources Yoga spends on any single layout calculation, preventing resource exhaustion.

Impact:

  • DoS: Significantly reduces the impact of DoS attacks by directly controlling Yoga's resource consumption. The effectiveness depends on the chosen timeout value and the robustness of the interruption mechanism.

Currently Implemented:

  • A basic timeout of 5 seconds is implemented in YogaLayoutService.js using JavaScript's setTimeout. However, this does not reliably interrupt the Yoga calculation; it only prevents the result from being used after 5 seconds.

Missing Implementation:

  • Reliable Interruption: The current implementation lacks a mechanism to stop the Yoga calculation when the timeout occurs. This is the most critical missing piece. The recommended solution is to move Yoga calculations to a separate process or thread.
  • Configurable Timeout: The timeout value is hardcoded.
  • Resource Monitoring: No CPU/memory monitoring is performed.
  • Robust Error Handling: Error handling on timeout is minimal.
  • Targeted Unit Tests: No unit tests specifically verify the interruption of long-running Yoga calculations.

Mitigation Strategy: Fuzz Testing (of Yoga Itself)

Description:

  1. Choose Fuzzing Tool: Select a suitable fuzz testing tool for your Yoga language binding and platform. Common choices include:
    • AFL (American Fuzzy Lop): A general-purpose fuzzer, often used for C/C++ code.
    • libFuzzer: A library for in-process, coverage-guided fuzzing (often used with C/C++).
    • Honggfuzz: Another coverage-guided fuzzer.
    • Language-Specific Fuzzers: Some languages have their own fuzzing tools (e.g., go-fuzz for Go).
  2. Create Fuzz Target: Write a "fuzz target" – a function that takes a byte array as input and uses that data to create and calculate a Yoga layout. This function should be designed to exercise various parts of the Yoga API. Example (pseudo-code): 
    // Example fuzz target (C++)
extern "C" int LLVMFuzzerTestOneInput(const uint8_t *data, size_t size) {
  // 1. Use 'data' to create a Yoga node hierarchy.
  //    - The first few bytes could determine the number of nodes.
  //    - Subsequent bytes could define node properties (width, height, flex, etc.).
  //    - Use modulo operations and bitwise operations to map bytes to valid Yoga enum values.
  YGNodeRef root = YGNodeNew();
  // ... (populate the node hierarchy based on 'data') ...

  // 2. Calculate the layout.
  YGNodeCalculateLayout(root, YGUndefined, YGUndefined, YGDirectionLTR);

  // 3. Clean up.
  YGNodeFreeRecursive(root);
  return 0; // Return 0 to indicate success.
}
  3. Compile with Fuzzer: Compile your fuzz target and the Yoga library with the chosen fuzzer's instrumentation. This usually involves using a specific compiler (e.g., clang with libFuzzer) and compiler flags.
  4. Run Fuzzer: Run the fuzzer, providing it with an initial "corpus" of valid layout configurations (if needed). The fuzzer will then generate a large number of mutated inputs and run your fuzz target with them.
  5. Analyze Crashes: The fuzzer will report any crashes or hangs it finds. Analyze these crashes using a debugger (e.g., GDB) to identify the root cause (e.g., buffer overflow, integer overflow).
  6. Fix Vulnerabilities: Address any vulnerabilities found by the fuzzer. This might involve modifying the Yoga source code or your application's usage of Yoga.
  7. Regression Testing: After fixing a vulnerability, add the crashing input to your test suite to prevent regressions.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Data Corruption (Low to Medium Severity): Identifies potential vulnerabilities in Yoga's core logic (e.g., buffer overflows, integer overflows) that could be exploited by carefully crafted input.

  • Denial of Service (DoS) (Low to Medium Severity): Can uncover bugs that lead to crashes or hangs, which could be exploited for DoS.

    Impact:

  • Data Corruption: Significantly reduces the risk of data corruption by proactively finding and fixing vulnerabilities.

  • DoS: Can reduce the risk of DoS by identifying and fixing crash-inducing bugs.

Currently Implemented:

  • Not implemented.

Missing Implementation:

  • No fuzz testing is currently performed on the Yoga library or its integration within the application.
  • This requires setting up a fuzzing environment, writing fuzz targets, and integrating fuzzing into the development workflow.

Mitigation Strategy: Yoga Configuration Simplification (If Possible and Applicable)

Description:

  1. Analyze Layout Complexity: Review existing Yoga layout configurations and identify areas of unnecessary complexity. Look for:
    • Deeply nested hierarchies.
    • Excessive use of flexbox properties.
    • Redundant or conflicting styles.
  2. Refactor Layouts: Simplify the layout configurations where possible. This might involve:
    • Flattening hierarchies.
    • Using simpler layout algorithms (e.g., replacing complex flexbox layouts with simpler absolute positioning where appropriate).
    • Removing unnecessary nodes or styles.
  3. Profile Performance: After simplifying layouts, profile the performance of the Yoga calculations to ensure that the changes have had a positive impact.
  4. Regression Testing: Run visual regression tests to ensure that the simplified layouts still render correctly.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Denial of Service (DoS) via Complex Layouts (High Severity): Reduces the computational cost of layout calculations, making it more difficult for attackers to trigger resource exhaustion.
  • Data Corruption (Low Severity): Indirectly reduces the likelihood of triggering edge-case bugs in Yoga related to complex layouts.

Impact:

  • DoS: Can reduce the risk of DoS, but the effectiveness depends on the extent to which layouts can be simplified.
  • Data Corruption: Provides a minor reduction in risk.

Currently Implemented:

  • Some efforts have been made to simplify layouts during development, but there is no formal process.

Missing Implementation:

  • No systematic review of layout complexity is performed.
  • No profiling is done specifically to measure the impact of layout changes on Yoga performance.
  • No formal guidelines or best practices for creating simple and efficient Yoga layouts.