linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: Don't warn if memdup

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: <20120112135803.1fb98fd6.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:58:03 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>,
	Dustin Kirkland <kirkland@...onical.com>,
	ecryptfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Don't warn if memdup_user fails

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:19:54 -0800 (PST)
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Jan 2012, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> 
> > I think you missed Andrew's point. We absolutely want to issue a
> > kernel warning here because ecryptfs is misusing the memdup_user()
> > API. We must not let userspace processes allocate large amounts of
> > memory arbitrarily.
> > 
> 
> I think it's good to fix ecryptfs like Tyler is doing and, at the same 
> time, ensure that the len passed to memdup_user() makes sense prior to 
> kmallocing memory with GFP_KERNEL.  Perhaps something like
> 
> 	if (WARN_ON(len > PAGE_SIZE << PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER))
> 		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> 
> in which case __GFP_NOWARN is irrelevant.

If someone is passing huge size_t's into kmalloc() and getting failures
then that's probably a bug.  So perhaps we should add a warning to
kmalloc itself if the size_t is out of bounds, and !__GFP_NOWARN.

That might cause problems with those callers who like to call kmalloc()
in a probing loop with decreasing size_t.


But none of this will be very effective.  If someone is passing an
unchecked size_t into kmalloc then normal testing will not reveal the
problem because the testers won't pass stupid numbers into their
syscalls.

--
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/