linux-kernel - Re: [patch 6/7] SDHCI: Check DMA for overruns at end of transfer

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:	Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:58:37 +0000
From:	Ben Dooks <ben@...ff.org.uk>
To:	Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>
Cc:	Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	drzeus-mmc@...eus.cx, sdhci-devel@...t.drzeus.cx
Subject: Re: [patch 6/7] SDHCI: Check DMA for overruns at end of transfer

On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 11:28:40PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2008, Ben Dooks wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 07:12:00PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > Maybe I didn't understand it right, but if the DMA controller could overrun
> > > a buffer, don't you ALSO need to add defensive padding (i.e. increase the
> > > buffer) to make sure nothing important gets overrun?
> > 
> > This is only generated by problems elsewhere in the driver, such as
> > getting the timeout clock wrong. It is here just as a precaution and
> > as an aide to debugging, it should not trigger in normal circumstances.
> 
> Then why is it just a WARN_ON, since you had a rogue DMA operation
> overwriting unknown kernel memory?  Seems like an outright BUG_ON to me.

It is a problem, but it doesn't kill the entire system. We could print it
at a higher level. The WARN_ON()/BUG_ON() where not appropriate, as we do
not need a whole stack backtrace, and I belive the mmc block thread somehow
seems to manage to keep running even with an OOPS.

> > There is a seperate problem where the DMA buffer is passed from the stack
> > which is, IIRC, a complete no-no under Linux. 
> 
> Can't say much on that.  I just found it strange that something as damaging
> as an overrun was only getting a WARN_ON and no defensive measure.  If it is
> not going to happen normally, it might not require a defensive buffer, but
> once it happens, it looks like one must reboot ASAP from what you said...

-- 
Ben (ben@...ff.org, http://www.fluff.org/)

  'a smiley only costs 4 bytes'
--
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/