linux-kernel - Re: CVE-2014-8159 kernel: infiniband: uverbs: unprotected physical memory access

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 08 Apr 2015 14:44:03 +0200
From:	Yann Droneaud <ydroneaud@...eya.com>
To:	Shachar Raindel <raindel@...lanox.com>
Cc:	"oss-security@...ts.openwall.com" <oss-security@...ts.openwall.com>,
	"<linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org> (linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org)" 
	<linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: CVE-2014-8159 kernel: infiniband: uverbs: unprotected physical
 memory access

Hi,

Le mercredi 08 avril 2015 à 14:19 +0200, Yann Droneaud a écrit :
> Le jeudi 02 avril 2015 à 16:34 +0000, Shachar Raindel a écrit :
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Yann Droneaud [mailto:ydroneaud@...eya.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 6:16 PM
> > > Le jeudi 02 avril 2015 à 10:52 +0000, Shachar Raindel a écrit :
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Yann Droneaud [mailto:ydroneaud@...eya.com]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 1:05 PM
> > > > > Le mercredi 18 mars 2015 à 17:39 +0000, Shachar Raindel a écrit :
> > > ...
> > > > > > +	/*
> > > > > > +	 * If the combination of the addr and size requested for this
> > > > > memory
> > > > > > +	 * region causes an integer overflow, return error.
> > > > > > +	 */
> > > > > > +	if ((PAGE_ALIGN(addr + size) <= size) ||
> > > > > > +	    (PAGE_ALIGN(addr + size) <= addr))
> > > > > > +		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> > > > > > +
> > > > >
> > > > > Can access_ok() be used here ?
> > > > >
> > > > >          if (!access_ok(writable ? VERIFY_WRITE : VERIFY_READ,
> > > > >                         addr, size))
> > > > >                   return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, this will break the current ODP semantics.
> > > >
> > > > ODP allows the user to register memory that is not accessible yet.
> > > > This is a critical design feature, as it allows avoiding holding
> > > > a registration cache. Adding this check will break the behavior,
> > > > forcing memory to be all accessible when registering an ODP MR.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Failed to notice previously, but since this would break ODP, and ODP is
> > > only available starting v3.19-rc1, my proposed fix might be applicable
> > > for older kernel (if not better).
> > > 
> > 
> > Can you explain how this proposed fix is better than the existing patch?
> > Why do we want to push to the stable tree a patch that is not in the
> > upstream? There is an existing, tested, patch that is going to the tip
> > of the development. It even applies cleanly on every kernel version around.
> > 
> 
> access_ok() check for overflow *and* that the region is the memory range
> for the current process. The later check is not done in your proposed 
> fix (but it should not be needed as get_user_pages() will be called 
> to validate the whole region for non-ODP memory registration).
> 
> Anyway, AFAIK access_ok() won't check for address being not NULL and
> size not being 0, and I've noticed your proposed fix also ensure address
> is not equal to NULL and, more important, that size is not equal to 0

It only check address not being 0 if size is already PAGE_SIZE aligned,
and it only check size not being 0 if address is already PAGE_SIZE
aligned.

> before v3.15-rc1 and commit eeb8461e36c9 ("IB: Refactor umem to use
> linear SG table"), calling ib_umem_get() with size equal to 0 would 
> succeed with any arbitrary address ... who knows what might happen in 
> the lowlevel drivers (aka. providers) if they got an umem for a 0-sized
> memory region.
> This part of the changes was not detailled in your commit message: it's
> an issue not related to overflow which is addressed by your patch.
> 
> So I agree my proposed patch is no better than yours: I've missed the
> 0-sized memory region issue and didn't take care of NULL address.
> 

Regards.

-- 
Yann Droneaud
OPTEYA


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/