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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2022 16:01:57 -0800 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>, David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] usercopy: Check valid lifetime via stack depth On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 09:33:45 -0800 Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote: > Under CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY=y, when exact stack frame boundary checking > is not available (i.e. everything except x86 with FRAME_POINTER), check > a stack object as being at least "current depth valid", in the sense > that any object within the stack region but not between start-of-stack > and current_stack_pointer should be considered unavailable (i.e. its > lifetime is from a call no longer present on the stack). > > Introduce ARCH_HAS_CURRENT_STACK_POINTER to track which architectures > have actually implemented the common global register alias. > > Additionally report usercopy bounds checking failures with an offset > from current_stack_pointer, which may assist with diagnosing failures. > > The LKDTM USERCOPY_STACK_FRAME_TO and USERCOPY_STACK_FRAME_FROM tests > (once slightly adjusted in a separate patch) will pass again with > this fixed. Again, what does this actually do? > Reported-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com> A link to that report would shed some light. But actually describing the user-visible impact right there in the changelog is preferable. It sounds like a selftest is newly failing, which makes it a userspace-visible regression, perhaps? If so, do we have a Fixes: and is a cc:stable warranted?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists