linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] kptr_restrict for hiding kernel pointers

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: <1293039332.9820.262.camel@dan>
Date:	Wed, 22 Dec 2010 12:35:32 -0500
From:	Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@...curity.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, tgraf@...radead.org, eugeneteo@...nel.org,
	kees.cook@...onical.com, davem@...emloft.net,
	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	eparis@...isplace.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] kptr_restrict for hiding kernel pointers

On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 18:13 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@...curity.com> wrote:
> 
> > +	case 'K':
> > +		/*
> > +		 * %pK cannot be used in IRQ context because its test
> > +		 * for CAP_SYSLOG would be meaningless.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (in_irq() || in_serving_softirq() || in_nmi())
> > +			WARN_ONCE(1, "%%pK used in interrupt context.\n");
> 
> Hm, that bit looks possibly broken - some useful warning in irq context could print 
> a pointer into the syslog and this would generate a second warning? That probably 
> would crash as it recurses back into the printk code?
> 

I don't see a reason to ever use %pK to print to the syslog, since
reading it is now optionally protected with dmesg_restrict, and
stripping pointers from the syslog will cripple any post-mortem
debugging for everyone.  I understand the desire to prevent things from
breaking even if it's used incorrectly, but I'm not really convinced
that this would break anything even in this scenario.  The WARN_ONCE
will prevent any unbounded recursion.  I'm just not clear on how this
could cause a crash.

> Instead a warning could be inserted into the generated output instead, for example 
> 'pK-error' (carefully staying within pointer length limits).
> 

If it's used in IRQ context and its output needs to be read by a
userspace utility using %p to parse, this will break it.

-Dan


--
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/