linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] kernel/fork: handle put_user errors for CLONE_PARENT

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: <CALCETrXRn76TTe8BWtBiwMP2Nted-KWxWQjZEeGFyJmJEODiyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 6 Feb 2015 13:55:04 -0800
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Roman Gushchin <klamm@...dex-team.ru>,
	Nikita Vetoshkin <nekto0n@...dex-team.ru>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kernel/fork: handle put_user errors for CLONE_PARENT_SETTID

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Konstantin Khlebnikov
>> <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru> wrote:
>>> Handling of flag CLONE_PARENT_SETTID has the same problem: error returned
>>> from put_user() is ignored. Glibc completely relies on that feature and uses
>>> value returned from syscall only for error checking.
>>
>> I'm not seeing the advantage of the error checking part of the pacth
>> patch. It generates extra code, possibly changing existing interfaces,
>> and it doesn't actually buy us anything.
>>
>> What's the upside? If somebody passes in a bad pointer, it's their
>> problem. For all we know, people used to pass in NULL, even if they
>> had the SETTID bit set. This makes it now return EFAULT.
>
> Currently that works fine only because kernel retries 0-order allocations
> endlessly. But pagefault_out_of_memory() is never called for non-user PF.
> For kernel PF all oom-kills are triggered by buddy-allocator.
> If buddy allocator gave up earlier then page-faults from kernel space
> could fail without OOM. And in CoW area user-space will see stale data.
> So, either we must handle all put_user/copy_to_user errors (which isn't
> that bad idea) or kernel must force all PF to success-or-die policy.
>
> First patch is that ugly because kernel has never checked errors
> in that place. So, I've tried to find solution which could fix problem
> without breaking backward compatibility.

If you're really worried about compatibility, it would be possible, if
really really ugly, to check whether there's a vma at all at the
requested address and to return -EFAULT only in the case where there
is a vma but put_user still failed.

A less awful approach might be to accept put_user failures if the
address is NULL.

--Andy
--
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/