Message-ID: <CACT4Y+Z_hxVOqUeVtvOH-eCkTLveW3vsPtcXN-jhs7=cbd21Zw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 4 Oct 2013 10:05:29 +0400
From:	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: make sure we do not read beyond allocation

On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 12:57 AM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 12:36:08PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> > Kees, try to think for a minute[1].  Really.  We have general-purpose
>> > ...
>> > [1] yes, yes, I know - the mere mention of security should've prevented such
>> > arrogant requests.  It's an imperfect universe.
>>
>> I want to attempt to disassemble what you've communicating here:
>>
>> a) I'm not thinking.
>> b) Requesting that someone think when they mention security is arrogant.
>
> Not really.
>
> It's just that all too often completely pointless changes are touted
> as security hardening.  With replies along the lines of "it doesn't
> really buy you anything" countered with indignant "but what if
> <impossible situation>" and/or references to "defense in depth" (used
> as a magical incantation), etc.
>
> You've posted a provably pointless patch.  Happens to all of us.  And in
> reply to "it's pointless for the following reasons" (with moderate
> level of sarcasm) you responded pretty much with "but what if allocator
> changes?  It's more robust that way".  OK, but if you go for that
> kind of arguments (and they can be valid), you'd better be correct.
> You were not, and for very obvious reasons.  Let me repeat, this
> time with sarcasm level down to zero:
>
> Let n be some integer between 32 and 4096 and N be equal to n rounded up
> to word size.  If kmalloc(n) returns a pointer such that fetch from
> (char *)p[N - 1] triggers an exception, we have a badly broken kernel.
> It can happen only if there is a page boundary between p[n-1] and p[N-1],
> which means that p is not word-aligned.
> Consider the following code:
>         struct foo {
>                 unsigned long n;
>                 char a[];
>         } *p = kmalloc(offsetof(struct foo, a) + 33);
>         if (p)
>                 p->n = 1;
> and note that it will result in an exception on any architecture that prohibits
> unaligned accesses in the kernel.  Even on architectures where those are
> allowed, misaligned structures mean serious correctness problems (atomicity of
> stores, etc.)
>
> In other words, kmalloc() (or, indeed, userland malloc()) demonstrating
> such behaviour would need immediate fixing.  The only exception I can
> think of is something with byte granularity of memory protection; in such
> case we can have that without unaligned return values returned by allocator.
> Which would require a lot of changes in mm/*, at the very least, and probably
> would violate a lot of assumptions elsewhere in the kernel (starting with
> sizeof(void *) == sizeof(unsigned long)).
>
>> What the patch does help with, though, is dynamic analysis tools that
>> are looking for out-of-bound reads, which this clearly is. It should
>> be considered a violation of the API to attempt to access a range
>> beyond what was requested for the allocation. Fixing this means lots
>> of noise vanishes from such analysis of the allocation API, letting
>> other tools besides just KASAN do work to find other more serious
>> problems in heap usage.
>>
>> Does fixing this to help dynamic analysis tools somehow make the
>> kernel worse? I think that fixing this makes it easier to find further
>> bugs that might be much more serious.
>
> Possibly true.  But then I'd suggest wrapping that into a different ifdef;
> grep for ifdef __CHECKER__, with comment along the lines of "to simplify
> analysis of potential out-of-bounds accesses".


Hi,

Any single reason to not just fix the code?

With this patch:
+ sticks with "do not access beyond request size", which is a good
thing all others equal
+ makes static and dynamic verification tools happy
- ???

Current code:
- accesses memory beyond requested size, which is a bad thing all others equal
- makes static and dynamic verification tools unhappy, which makes you
miss really important things
+ ???

I think we just need to land it as is.
--
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