linux-kernel - [ 4/8] x86/mm: Check if PUD is large when validating a kernel address

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: <20130215225431.385985324@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 15 Feb 2013 14:56:11 -0800
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.coM>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: [ 4/8] x86/mm: Check if PUD is large when validating a kernel address

3.4-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>

commit 0ee364eb316348ddf3e0dfcd986f5f13f528f821 upstream.

A user reported the following oops when a backup process reads
/proc/kcore:

 BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at ffffbb00ff33b000
 IP: [<ffffffff8103157e>] kern_addr_valid+0xbe/0x110
 [...]

 Call Trace:
  [<ffffffff811b8aaa>] read_kcore+0x17a/0x370
  [<ffffffff811ad847>] proc_reg_read+0x77/0xc0
  [<ffffffff81151687>] vfs_read+0xc7/0x130
  [<ffffffff811517f3>] sys_read+0x53/0xa0
  [<ffffffff81449692>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b

Investigation determined that the bug triggered when reading
system RAM at the 4G mark. On this system, that was the first
address using 1G pages for the virt->phys direct mapping so the
PUD is pointing to a physical address, not a PMD page.

The problem is that the page table walker in kern_addr_valid() is
not checking pud_large() and treats the physical address as if
it was a PMD.  If it happens to look like pmd_none then it'll
silently fail, probably returning zeros instead of real data. If
the data happens to look like a present PMD though, it will be
walked resulting in the oops above.

This patch adds the necessary pud_large() check.

Unfortunately the problem was not readily reproducible and now
they are running the backup program without accessing
/proc/kcore so the patch has not been validated but I think it
makes sense.

Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.coM>
Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20130211145236.GX21389@suse.de
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h |    5 +++++
 arch/x86/mm/init_64.c          |    3 +++
 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)

--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h
@@ -142,6 +142,11 @@ static inline unsigned long pmd_pfn(pmd_
 	return (pmd_val(pmd) & PTE_PFN_MASK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
 }
 
+static inline unsigned long pud_pfn(pud_t pud)
+{
+	return (pud_val(pud) & PTE_PFN_MASK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
+}
+
 #define pte_page(pte)	pfn_to_page(pte_pfn(pte))
 
 static inline int pmd_large(pmd_t pte)
--- a/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
@@ -821,6 +821,9 @@ int kern_addr_valid(unsigned long addr)
 	if (pud_none(*pud))
 		return 0;
 
+	if (pud_large(*pud))
+		return pfn_valid(pud_pfn(*pud));
+
 	pmd = pmd_offset(pud, addr);
 	if (pmd_none(*pmd))
 		return 0;


--
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/