netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: Whitelist the skbuff_head

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:   Thu, 08 Feb 2018 15:16:21 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     keescook@...omium.org
Cc:     syzbot+e2d6cfb305e9f3911dea@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        ebiggers3@...il.com, james.morse@....com,
        keun-o.park@...kmatter.ae, labbott@...hat.com, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Whitelist the skbuff_head_cache "cb" field

From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 17:44:38 -0800

> Most callers of put_cmsg() use a "sizeof(foo)" for the length argument.
> Within put_cmsg(), a copy_to_user() call is made with a dynamic size, as a
> result of the cmsg header calculations. This means that hardened usercopy
> will examine the copy, even though it was technically a fixed size and
> should be implicitly whitelisted. All the put_cmsg() calls being built
> from values in skbuff_head_cache are coming out of the protocol-defined
> "cb" field, so whitelist this field entirely instead of creating per-use
> bounce buffers, for which there are concerns about performance.
> 
> Original report was:
 ...
> Reported-by: syzbot+e2d6cfb305e9f3911dea@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> Fixes: 6d07d1cd300f ("usercopy: Restrict non-usercopy caches to size 0")
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> ---
> I tried the inlining, it was awful. Splitting put_cmsg() was awful. So,
> instead, whitelist the "cb" field as the least bad option if bounce
> buffers are unacceptable. Dave, do you want to take this through net, or
> should I take it through the usercopy tree?

Thanks Kees, I'll take this through my 'net' tree.