[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151006072151.GA10672@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 09:21:51 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] string: Fix strscpy() uninitialized data copy bug
* Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately using memset() like that will break on big-endian machines.
doh ... and I somehow convinced myself that it was endian safe ;-)
> [...] I always have to go back and play around with the word-at-a-time.h
> definitions to get this right, but I think it's possible that the "data" itself
> has the mask to clear the unwanted bytes, i.e. you could do something like the
> following (untested).
>
> I'm still not totally convinced it's necessary, as programmers should generally
> assume anything beyond the end of a copied string is garbage anyway, and since
> we're not copying it to userspace we're not exposing any possibly secure data.
>
> Races shouldn't be a concern either since, after all, there is already a window
> where we may have overwritten the NUL end of an earlier shorter string, and now
> a racy copy from the partially-written dest buf could walk right off the end of
> the buffer itself, so you'd already better not be doing that.
>
> But, all that said, I'm not opposed to a simple fix to avoid carrying along the
> uninitialized bytes from beyond the end of the source string, since it does seem
> a bit cleaner, even if I can't put my finger in a reason why it would actually
> matter.
So it would matter for more advanced sharing ABIs: for example if there's an
mlock()-ed area registered on the kernel side as well as kernel accessible memory,
and if we do an strscpy() to such a target area, we don't want to leak
uninitialized data to user-space.
(This is not theoretical, the perf ring-buffer is such a construct for example.)
So IMHO this is a quality of implementation issue that we should fix.
> diff --git a/lib/string.c b/lib/string.c
> index 8dbb7b1eab50..ba64f4e0382d 100644
> --- a/lib/string.c
> +++ b/lib/string.c
> @@ -203,12 +203,13 @@ ssize_t strscpy(char *dest, const char *src, size_t count)
> unsigned long c, data;
> c = *(unsigned long *)(src+res);
> - *(unsigned long *)(dest+res) = c;
> if (has_zero(c, &data, &constants)) {
> data = prep_zero_mask(c, data, &constants);
> data = create_zero_mask(data);
> + *(unsigned long *)(dest+res) = c & data;
> return res + find_zero(data);
> }
> + *(unsigned long *)(dest+res) = c;
> res += sizeof(unsigned long);
> count -= sizeof(unsigned long);
> max -= sizeof(unsigned long);
Looks good to me!
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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