linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Avoid buffer overflows in get_user

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200802121656.09440.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date:	Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:56:09 +1100
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Robert Hancock <hancockr@...w.ca>
Cc:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Avoid buffer overflows in get_user_pages()

On Tuesday 12 February 2008 14:16, Robert Hancock wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Tuesday 12 February 2008 10:17, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> >> Avoid buffer overflows in get_user_pages()
> >>
> >> So I spent a while pounding my head against my monitor trying to figure
> >> out the vmsplice() vulnerability - how could a failure to check for
> >> *read* access turn into a root exploit?  It turns out that it's a buffer
> >> overflow problem which is made easy by the way get_user_pages() is
> >> coded.
> >>
> >> In particular, "len" is a signed int, and it is only checked at the
> >> *end* of a do {} while() loop.  So, if it is passed in as zero, the loop
> >> will execute once and decrement len to -1.  At that point, the loop will
> >> proceed until the next invalid address is found; in the process, it will
> >> likely overflow the pages array passed in to get_user_pages().
> >>
> >> I think that, if get_user_pages() has been asked to grab zero pages,
> >> that's what it should do.  Thus this patch; it is, among other things,
> >> enough to block the (already fixed) root exploit and any others which
> >> might be lurking in similar code.  I also think that the number of pages
> >> should be unsigned, but changing the prototype of this function probably
> >> requires some more careful review.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
> >>
> >> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> >> index e5628a5..7f50fd8 100644
> >> --- a/mm/memory.c
> >> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> >> @@ -989,6 +989,8 @@ int get_user_pages(struct task_struct *tsk, struct
> >> mm_struct *mm, int i;
> >>  	unsigned int vm_flags;
> >>
> >> +	if (len <= 0)
> >> +		return 0;
> >
> > BUG_ON()?
>
> Well, not if the code involved in the exploit can pass a zero value,

Which is a bug, and you want to catch it.


> otherwise it's just turning it into a DoS..

If it is due to a security bug, then the fix is to fix the point
where the kernel starts trusting an untrusted value. Not to hide
the bug like this. Arguably, a BUG_ON is better in the case of a
security hole because you want to halt the process as soon as you
detect a problem.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/