linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] proc: Fix uninitialized byte read in get_mm

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:   Fri, 12 Jul 2019 23:17:03 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Jakub Jankowski <shasta@...corp.com>
To:     Alexey Izbyshev <izbyshev@...ras.ru>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        security@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: Fix uninitialized byte read in get_mm_cmdline()

On 2019-07-12, Alexey Izbyshev wrote:

> On 7/12/19 8:46 PM, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>> The proper fix to all /proc/*/cmdline problems is to revert
>>
>> 	f5b65348fd77839b50e79bc0a5e536832ea52d8d
>> 	proc: fix missing final NUL in get_mm_cmdline() rewrite
>>
>> 	5ab8271899658042fabc5ae7e6a99066a210bc0e
>> 	fs/proc: simplify and clarify get_mm_cmdline() function
>>
> Should this be interpreted as an actual suggestion to revert the patches,
> fix the conflicts, test and submit them, or is this more like thinking out
> loud? In the former case, will it be OK for long term branches?
>
> get_mm_cmdline() does seem easier to read for me before 5ab8271899658042.
> But it also has different semantics in corner cases, for example:
>
> - If there is no NUL at arg_end-1, it reads only the first string in
> the combined arg/env block, and doesn't terminate it with NUL.
>
> - If there is any problem with access_remote_vm() or copy_to_user(),
> it returns -EFAULT even if some data were copied to userspace.
>
> On the other hand, 5ab8271899658042 was merged not too long ago (about a year),
> so it's possible that the current semantics isn't heavily relied upon.

I posted this (corner?) case ~3 months ago, unfortunately it wasn't picked 
up by anyone: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/4/5/825
You can treat it as another datapoint in this discussion.


Regards,
  Jakub

-- 
Jakub Jankowski|shasta@...corp.com|https://toxcorp.com/