| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20090916142956.9998ba71.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:29:56 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk" <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
oleg@...hat.com
Subject: [RFC][PATCH][bugfix] more checks for negative f_pos handling (Was
Re: Question: how to handle too big f_pos
The problem:
> I'm writing a patch against /dev/kmem...I found a problem.
>
> /dev/kmem (and /proc/<pid>/mem) puts virtual addres to f->f_pos.
>
> but f->f_pos is always negative and rw_verify_ara() returns -EINVAL always.
Changed CC: List.
This is a trial to consider how to fix negative f_pos problem shown in above.
Hmm, even after this patch, x86's vsyscall area is not readable.
ffffffffff600000-ffffffffff601000 r-xp 00000000 00:00 0 [vsyscall]
But maybe no problems. (now, it cannot be read, anyway.)
I tested /dev/kmem on x86-64 and this works fine. I added a fix for
/proc/<pid>/mem because I know ia64's hugetlbe area is not readable
via /proc/<pid>/mem. (But I'm not sure other 64bit arch has this
kind of problems in /proc/<pid>/mem)
==
From: KAMEZAWA Hiruyoki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Modifying rw_verify_area()'s negative f_pos check.
Now, rw_verify_area() has this check
if (unlikely((pos < 0) || (loff_t) (pos + count) < 0))
return -EINVAL
And access to special files as /dev/mem,kmem, /proc/<pid>/mem
returns unexpected -EINVAL.
(For example, ia64 maps hugetlb at 0x8000000000000000- region)
This patch tries to make range check more precise by using
llseek ops defined per special files.
Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiruyoki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
---
fs/proc/base.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++-----
fs/read_write.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
Index: mmotm-2.6.31-Sep14/fs/read_write.c
===================================================================
--- mmotm-2.6.31-Sep14.orig/fs/read_write.c
+++ mmotm-2.6.31-Sep14/fs/read_write.c
@@ -205,6 +205,37 @@ bad:
}
#endif
+static int
+__verify_negative_pos_range(struct file *file, loff_t pos, size_t count)
+{
+ unsigned long long upos, end;
+ loff_t ret;
+
+ /* disallow overflow */
+ upos = (unsigned long long)pos;
+ end = upos + count;
+ if (end < pos)
+ return -EOVERFLOW;
+ /*
+ * Sanity check...subsystem has to provide llseek for handle big pos.
+ * Subsystem's llseek should verify f_pos's value comaparing with its
+ * max file size.
+ * Note1: generic file ops' llseek cannot handle negative pos.
+ * Note2: should we take care of pos == -EINVAL ?
+ * Note3: we check flags and ops here for avoiding taking locks in.
+ * default_lseek.
+ */
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ if ((file->f_mode & FMODE_LSEEK) &&
+ (file->f_op && file->f_op->llseek)) {
+ ret = vfs_llseek(file, 0, SEEK_CUR);
+ if (ret == pos)
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+ return (int)ret;
+}
+
/*
* rw_verify_area doesn't like huge counts. We limit
* them to something that fits in "int" so that others
@@ -222,8 +253,12 @@ int rw_verify_area(int read_write, struc
if (unlikely((ssize_t) count < 0))
return retval;
pos = *ppos;
- if (unlikely((pos < 0) || (loff_t) (pos + count) < 0))
- return retval;
+ if (unlikely((pos < 0) || (loff_t) (pos + count) < 0)) {
+ /* some files requires special care */
+ retval = __verify_negative_pos_range(file, pos, count);
+ if (retval)
+ return retval;
+ }
if (unlikely(inode->i_flock && mandatory_lock(inode))) {
retval = locks_mandatory_area(
Index: mmotm-2.6.31-Sep14/fs/proc/base.c
===================================================================
--- mmotm-2.6.31-Sep14.orig/fs/proc/base.c
+++ mmotm-2.6.31-Sep14/fs/proc/base.c
@@ -903,18 +903,30 @@ out_no_task:
loff_t mem_lseek(struct file *file, loff_t offset, int orig)
{
+ struct task_struct *task = get_proc_task(file->f_path.dentry->d_inode);
+ unsigned long long new_offset = -EINVAL;
+
+ if (!task) /* lseek's spec doesn't allow -ESRCH but... */
+ return -ESRCH;
+
switch (orig) {
case 0:
- file->f_pos = offset;
+ new_offset = offset;
break;
case 1:
- file->f_pos += offset;
+ new_offset = (unsigned long long)f->f_pos + offset;
break;
default:
- return -EINVAL;
+ new_offset = -EINVAL;
+ break;
}
- force_successful_syscall_return();
- return file->f_pos;
+ if (new_offset < (unsigned long long)TASK_SIZE_OF(task)) {
+ file->f_pos = (loff_t)new_offset;
+ force_successful_syscall_return();
+ } else
+ new_offset = -EINVAL;
+ put_task_struct(task);
+ return (loff_t)new_offset;
}
static const struct file_operations proc_mem_operations = {
--
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