linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH] mm/slab: remove HAVE_HARDENED_USERCOPY

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]

Message-ID: <ZG2rX4PN03Db8l4C@debian-BULLSEYE-live-builder-AMD64>
Date:   Wed, 24 May 2023 15:15:26 +0900
From:   Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
To:     David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/slab: remove HAVE_HARDENED_USERCOPY_ALLOCATOR

On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 05:31:47PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2023, Kees Cook wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 10:14:24AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > On 23.05.23 09:56, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 09:46:46AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > > > On 5/23/23 09:42, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 09:31:36AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > > > > > With SLOB removed, both remaining allocators support hardened usercopy,
> > > > > > > so remove the config and associated #ifdef.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >   mm/Kconfig       | 2 --
> > > > > > >   mm/slab.h        | 9 ---------
> > > > > > >   security/Kconfig | 8 --------
> > > > > > >   3 files changed, 19 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/Kconfig b/mm/Kconfig
> > > > > > > index 7672a22647b4..041f0da42f2b 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/mm/Kconfig
> > > > > > > +++ b/mm/Kconfig
> > > > > > > @@ -221,7 +221,6 @@ choice
> > > > > > >   config SLAB
> > > > > > >   	bool "SLAB"
> > > > > > >   	depends on !PREEMPT_RT
> > > > > > > -	select HAVE_HARDENED_USERCOPY_ALLOCATOR
> > > > > > >   	help
> > > > > > >   	  The regular slab allocator that is established and known to work
> > > > > > >   	  well in all environments. It organizes cache hot objects in
> > > > > > > @@ -229,7 +228,6 @@ config SLAB
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >   config SLUB
> > > > > > >   	bool "SLUB (Unqueued Allocator)"
> > > > > > > -	select HAVE_HARDENED_USERCOPY_ALLOCATOR
> > > > > > >   	help
> > > > > > >   	   SLUB is a slab allocator that minimizes cache line usage
> > > > > > >   	   instead of managing queues of cached objects (SLAB approach).
> > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/slab.h b/mm/slab.h
> > > > > > > index f01ac256a8f5..695ef96b4b5b 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/mm/slab.h
> > > > > > > +++ b/mm/slab.h
> > > > > > > @@ -832,17 +832,8 @@ struct kmem_obj_info {
> > > > > > >   void __kmem_obj_info(struct kmem_obj_info *kpp, void *object, struct slab *slab);
> > > > > > >   #endif
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_HARDENED_USERCOPY_ALLOCATOR
> > > > > > >   void __check_heap_object(const void *ptr, unsigned long n,
> > > > > > >   			 const struct slab *slab, bool to_user);
> > > > > > > -#else
> > > > > > > -static inline
> > > > > > > -void __check_heap_object(const void *ptr, unsigned long n,
> > > > > > > -			 const struct slab *slab, bool to_user)
> > > > > > > -{
> > > > > > > -}
> > > > > > > -#endif
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hm, this is still defined in slab.c/slub.c and invoked in usercopy.c, do we
> > > > > > not want the prototype?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Well I didn't delete the prototype, just the ifdef/else around, so now it's
> > > > > there unconditionally.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Perhaps replacing with #ifdef
> > > > > > CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY instead? I may be missing something here :)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Putting it under that #ifdef would work and match that the implementations
> > > > > of that function are under that same ifdef, but maybe it's unnecessary noise
> > > > > in the header?
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Yeah my brain inserted extra '-'s there, sorry!
> > > > 
> > > > Given we only define __check_heap_object() in sl[au]b.c if
> > > > CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY wouldn't we need to keep the empty version around
> > > > if !CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY since check_heap_object() appears to be called
> > > > unconditionally?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > The file is only compiled with CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY:
> > > 
> > > mm/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY) += usercopy.o
> > 
> > Right.
> > 
> > > Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> > 
> 
> Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>

looks fine to me,

Acked-by: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>

-- 
Hyeonggon Yoo

Doing kernel stuff as a hobby
Undergraduate | Chungnam National University
Dept. Computer Science & Engineering