linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v2] seq_file: Unconditionally use vmalloc for buffer

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, 17 Mar 2021 16:20:52 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Lee Duncan <lduncan@...e.com>, Chris Leech <cleech@...hat.com>,
        Adam Nichols <adam@...mm-co.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] seq_file: Unconditionally use vmalloc for buffer

On Wed 17-03-21 15:56:44, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 03:44:16PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 17-03-21 14:34:27, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 01:08:21PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > Btw. I still have problems with the approach. seq_file is intended to
> > > > provide safe way to dump values to the userspace. Sacrificing
> > > > performance just because of some abuser seems like a wrong way to go as
> > > > Al pointed out earlier. Can we simply stop the abuse and disallow to
> > > > manipulate the buffer directly? I do realize this might be more tricky
> > > > for reasons mentioned in other emails but this is definitely worth
> > > > doing.
> > > 
> > > We have to provide a buffer to "write into" somehow, so what is the best
> > > way to stop "abuse" like this?
> > 
> > What is wrong about using seq_* interface directly?
> 
> Right now every show() callback of sysfs would have to be changed :(

Is this really the case? Would it be too ugly to have an intermediate
buffer and then seq_puts it into the seq file inside sysfs_kf_seq_show.
Sure one copy more than necessary but it this shouldn't be a hot path or
even visible on small strings. So that might be worth destroying an
inherently dangerous seq API (seq_get_buf).
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs