netdev - Re: [PATCH 02/36] usercopy: Include offset in overflow report

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, 10 Jan 2018 09:25:20 -0600 (CST)
From:   Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Windsor <dave@...lcore.net>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
        Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Luis de Bethencourt <luisbg@...nel.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/36] usercopy: Include offset in overflow report

On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, Kees Cook wrote:

> -static void report_usercopy(unsigned long len, bool to_user, const char *type)
> +int report_usercopy(const char *name, const char *detail, bool to_user,
> +		    unsigned long offset, unsigned long len)
>  {
> -	pr_emerg("kernel memory %s attempt detected %s '%s' (%lu bytes)\n",
> +	pr_emerg("kernel memory %s attempt detected %s %s%s%s%s (offset %lu, size %lu)\n",
>  		to_user ? "exposure" : "overwrite",
> -		to_user ? "from" : "to", type ? : "unknown", len);
> +		to_user ? "from" : "to",
> +		name ? : "unknown?!",
> +		detail ? " '" : "", detail ? : "", detail ? "'" : "",
> +		offset, len);
>  	/*
>  	 * For greater effect, it would be nice to do do_group_exit(),
>  	 * but BUG() actually hooks all the lock-breaking and per-arch
>  	 * Oops code, so that is used here instead.
>  	 */
>  	BUG();

Should this be a WARN() or so? Or some configuration that changes
BUG() behavior? Otherwise

> +
> +	return -1;

This return code will never be returned.

Why a return code at all? Maybe I will see that in the following patches?