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: <20090515134315.GB8235@shareable.org>
Date:	Fri, 15 May 2009 14:43:15 +0100
From:	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Vitaly Mayatskikh <v.mayatskih@...il.com>,
	Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>, sandeen@...hat.com,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Perform check in iov_iter_fault_in_readable() by check_readable_bytes()

Andi Kleen wrote:
> > ptr = mmap(0, page_size, ....);
> > ...
> > write(fd, ptr + page_size - 256, 512);
> > 
> > Write() will fail here, but it can write first 256 bytes. Previously,
> > all 512 bytes were proceeded, but last 256 bytes were zeroed, and
> > sys_write() returned 256. Not very nice too. 
> 
> Is that really something that users rely on? It looks like a seriously
> broken user program. Which one is that? (just that I can avoid it :)

A few programs set pages read-only, and rely on SIGSEGVs to trigger
mprotect() in the signal handler and thus track dirty pages.

I think the Boehm garbage collector has this option, as do some LISP
interpreters.

System calls don't trigger SIGSEGVs so they can't rely on that when
calling read().  I'm not sure how they handle that.

It would be quite nice if it were safe to call read(), get EFAULT
immediately, or a truncated read() then the next read() gets EFAULT
because it starts at a missing page boundary, and then that's a hint
for the program to consult it's data structures and do it's mprotect()
thing.

Hopefully no programs assume they can do that already, but it would be
nice if they could begin to assume it, instead of checking their data
structure in advance of every read() call.

I don't know of any program which would need the same thing with
write(), but obviously good for symmetry.

-- Jamie
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ