linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH for 4.18 1/2] rseq: use __u64 for rseq_cs fields, validate abort_ip < TASK

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:   Mon, 2 Jul 2018 17:03:44 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
        Chris Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>,
        rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH for 4.18 1/2] rseq: use __u64 for rseq_cs fields,
 validate abort_ip < TASK_SIZE

----- On Jul 2, 2018, at 4:52 PM, Linus Torvalds torvalds@...ux-foundation.org wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 1:41 PM Mathieu Desnoyers
> <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
>>
>> -       if (copy_from_user(rseq_cs, urseq_cs, sizeof(*rseq_cs)))
>> +       if (copy_from_user(rseq_cs, urseq_cs, sizeof(*rseq_cs)) ||
>> +           rseq_cs->abort_ip >= TASK_SIZE)
>>                 return -EFAULT;
> 
> I think the abort_ip check should have the same error value as the
> other sanity checks, ie just be of this format:
> 
>>         if (rseq_cs->version > 0)
>>                 return -EINVAL;

OK, so I'll go for -EINVAL.

> 
> also, I think you should check start_ip to be consistent. You kind of
> accidentally do it with the check for
> 
>        if (rseq_cs->abort_ip - rseq_cs->start_ip - rseq_cs->post_commit_offset)

The check is actually:

        /* Ensure that abort_ip is not in the critical section. */
        if (rseq_cs->abort_ip - rseq_cs->start_ip < rseq_cs->post_commit_offset)
                return -EINVAL;

> 
> but honestly, that has underflow issues already, so I think you want
> to basically make the check be
> 
>        if (rseq_cs->abort_ip >= TASK_SIZE)
>                return -EINVAL;

that works.

> 
>        if (rseq_cs->start_ip >= rseq_cs->abort_ip)
>                return -EINVAL;

this one does not work. We need to ensure that abort_ip
is not between [ start_ip, start_ip + post_commit_offset ]. The
check you propose validates that start_ip is below abort_ip,
which is bogus. For instance, abort_ip can very well be in a
different section of the binary, at an address either below
or above start_ip.


> 
> which takes care of checkint  start_ip, and also the underflow for the
> post_commit_offset check.

What underflow issues are you concerned with ?

> 
> If somebody is depending on negative offsets, then that
> post_commit_offset logic is already wrong.
> 
>> +       usig = (u32 __user *)(unsigned long)(rseq_cs->abort_ip - sizeof(u32));
>>         ret = get_user(sig, usig);
> 
> That can underflow too, but I guess we can just rely on get_user()
> getting it right.

Yes, get_user() should handle that one properly.

Thanks,

Mathieu

> 
>                Linus

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com