linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sanitize task->comm to avoid leaking escape codes

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:	Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:59:56 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Kees Cook <kees.cook@...onical.com>
Cc:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sanitize task->comm to avoid leaking escape codes

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:09:52 -0700
Kees Cook <kees.cook@...onical.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:45:14AM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Kees Cook <kees.cook@...onical.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 01:00:28PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >> Surely it would be better to fix the tools which display this info
> > >> rather than making the kernel tell fibs.
> > >
> > > The strncpy in get_task_comm() is totally wrong -- it's testing the length
> > > of task->comm.
> > 
> > It also fills not just any buffer but buffer which is TASK_COMM_LEN byte wide.
> > 
> > > Why should get_task_comm not take a destination buffer length argument?
> > 
> > If you pass too small, you needlessly truncate output.
> 
> If you pass too small a buffer, get_task_comm will happily write all over
> the caller's stack past the end of the buffer if the contents of task->comm
> are large enough:
> 
>         strncpy(buf, tsk->comm, sizeof(tsk->comm));
> 
> The "n" argument to get_task_comm's use of strncpy is totally wrong --
> it needs to be the size of the destination, not the size of the source.
> Luckily, everyone using get_task_comm currently uses buffers that are
> sizeof(task->comm).

It's not "totally wrong" at all.  get_task_comm() *requires* that it be
passed a buffer of at least TASK_COMM_LEN bytes.  sizeof(tsk->comm)
equals TASK_COMM_LEN and always will do so.  We could replace the
sizeof with TASK_COMM_LEN for cosmetic reasons but that's utter
nitpicking.  But then, the comment right there says "buf must be at
least sizeof(tsk->comm) in size".  That's so simple that even a kernel
developer could understand it?

Do we need a runtime check every time to make sure that some developer
didn't misunderstand such a simple thing?  Seems pretty pointless -
there are a zillion such runtime checks we could add.  It'd be better
to do

#define get_task_comm(buf, tsk) {			\
	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(buf) < TASK_COMM_LEN);	\
	__get_task_comm(buf, tsk);			\
}

and save the runtime bloat.  But again, what was special about this
particular programmer error?  There are five or six instances of
strcpy(foo, current->comm).  Do we need runtime checks there as well??

--
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/