linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH] uaccess: Add minimum bounds check on kernel buffer size

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 7 Feb 2023 10:06:14 +0100
From:   Yann Droneaud <ydroneaud@...aton.org>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@...nel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uaccess: Add minimum bounds check on kernel buffer size

Hi,

Le 06/02/2023 à 21:03, Geert Uytterhoeven a écrit :

> Hi Arnd,
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 10:23 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2023, at 20:35, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> --- a/include/linux/uaccess.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/uaccess.h
>>> @@ -329,6 +329,10 @@ copy_struct_from_user(void *dst, size_t ksize,
>>> const void __user *src,
>>>        size_t size = min(ksize, usize);
>>>        size_t rest = max(ksize, usize) - size;
>>>
>>> +     /* Double check if ksize is larger than a known object size. */
>>> +     if (WARN_ON_ONCE(ksize > __builtin_object_size(dst, 1)))
>>> +             return -E2BIG;
>>> +
>> WARN_ON_ONCE() may be a little expensive since that adds two
>> comparisons and a static variable to each copy, but it's probably
>> fine.
> When seeing this, I was a bit worried about the size increase.
> Hence I gave it a try on atari_defconfig and ran bloat-o-meter.
> Surprisingly, there was no size increase at all, as all checks
> were optimized away.
>
> Hence perhaps this can become a compile-time check?

It should be a compile-time check, because one would not want __builtin_object_size(dst, 1) to return -1 if dst' size is not known at compile-time.

Regards.

-- 
Yann Droneaud
OPTEYA