linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tun: make sure interface usage can not overflow

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAGXu5j+x5pg6-9y72o=mE9TiNEyFqTTE=o8ETh1Ao8R20KNRwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Sep 2014 12:48:47 -0700
From:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
	Zhi Yong Wu <wuzhy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>,
	Masatake YAMATO <yamato@...hat.com>, Xi Wang <xii@...gle.com>,
	stephen hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tun: make sure interface usage can not overflow

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 4:48 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 04:27:53PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> This makes the size argument a const, since it is always populated by
>> the caller. Additionally double-checks to make sure the copy_from_user
>> can never overflow, keeping CONFIG_DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS happy:
>>
>>    In function 'copy_from_user',
>>        inlined from '__tun_chr_ioctl' at drivers/net/tun.c:1871:7:
>>        ... copy_from_user() buffer size is not provably correct
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>
> What exactly is the issue here?
> __tun_chr_ioctl is called with sizeof(struct compat_ifreq)
> or  sizeof (struct ifreq) as the last argument.

Correct. There is no vulnerability here; I am attempting to both make
the code more defensive to future changes, and to keep
CONFIG_DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS happy.

> So this looks like a false positive, but
> CONFIG_DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS machinery is supposed
> to avoid false positives.

The support in GCC is currently a bit faulty, and it seems that it
didn't notice the two callers were static values, so instead, adding
an explicit test keeps it happy.

> On which architecture is this?

This is on x86, but with CONFIG_DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS
correctly enabled (gcc after 4.6 broke its ability to correctly
optimize), which I've been playing with trying to get gcc working
again. I sent the patch because it seems like it's a reasonable
defensive change to make.

If you want to look more deeply, there's some background here:
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=371036

https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git/commit/?h=gcc-bug&id=92dd7154932d8775a05dfd3de5564124c05a4150

Thanks,

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
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/