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:   Fri, 9 Feb 2018 08:01:12 +1100
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     syzbot <syzbot+e2d6cfb305e9f3911dea@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>, keun-o.park@...kmatter.ae,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Whitelist the skbuff_head_cache "cb" field

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 7:16 AM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> 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.

Cool, thanks. And just to be clear, if it's not already obvious, this
patch needs kmem_cache_create_usercopy() which just landed in Linus's
tree last week, in case you've not merged yet.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security