linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: uaccess: fix regression in unsafe_get

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:   Sun, 17 Feb 2019 04:22:09 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Arthur Gautier <baloo@...di.net>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Pascal Bouchareine <pascal@...di.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: uaccess: fix regression in unsafe_get_user

On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 03:41:21AM +0000, Arthur Gautier wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 11:47:02PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 02:50:15PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > 
> > > What is the actual problem?  We’re not actually demand-faulting this data, are we?  Are we just overrunning the buffer because the from_user helpers are too clever?  Can we fix it for real by having the fancy helpers do *aligned* loads so that they don’t overrun the buffer?  Heck, this might be faster, too.
> > 
> > Unaligned _stores_ are not any cheaper, and you'd get one hell of
> > extra arithmetics from trying to avoid both.  Check something
> > like e.g. memcpy() on alpha, where you really have to keep all
> > accesses aligned, both on load and on store side.
> > 
> > Can't we just pad the buffers a bit?  Making sure that name_buf
> > and symlink_buf are _not_ followed by unmapped pages shouldn't
> > be hard.  Both are allocated by kmalloc(), so...
> 
> We cannot change alignment rules here. The input buffer string we're
> reading is coming from an cpio formated file and the format is
> defined by cpio(5).
> Nothing much we can do there I'm afraid. Input buffer is defined to
> be 4-byte aligned.

Who says anything about changing the format of the file?  At least
one trivial way to handle that would be this:

diff --git a/init/initramfs.c b/init/initramfs.c
index 7cea802d00ef..edbddfb73106 100644
--- a/init/initramfs.c
+++ b/init/initramfs.c
@@ -265,8 +265,12 @@ static int __init do_header(void)
 		state = Collect;
 		return 0;
 	}
-	if (S_ISREG(mode) || !body_len)
-		read_into(name_buf, N_ALIGN(name_len), GotName);
+	if (S_ISREG(mode) || !body_len) {
+		collect = collected = name_buf;
+		remains = N_ALIGN(name_len);
+		next_state = GotName;
+		state = Collect;
+	}
 	return 0;
 }
 
Another would be to have the buffer passed to flush_buffer() (i.e.
the callback of decompress_fn) allocated with 4 bytes of padding
past the part where the unpacked piece of data is placed for the
callback to find.  As in,

diff --git a/lib/decompress_inflate.c b/lib/decompress_inflate.c
index 63b4b7eee138..ca3f7ecc9b35 100644
--- a/lib/decompress_inflate.c
+++ b/lib/decompress_inflate.c
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ STATIC int INIT __gunzip(unsigned char *buf, long len,
 	rc = -1;
 	if (flush) {
 		out_len = 0x8000; /* 32 K */
-		out_buf = malloc(out_len);
+		out_buf = malloc(out_len + 4);
 	} else {
 		if (!out_len)
 			out_len = ((size_t)~0) - (size_t)out_buf; /* no limit */

for gunzip/decompress and similar ones for bzip2, etc.  The contents
layout doesn't have anything to do with that...