linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: refuse wrapped vm

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]

Date:	Tue, 12 Jul 2016 15:39:42 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Hector Marco-Gisbert <hecmargi@....es>,
	Ismael Ripoll Ripoll <iripoll@....es>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@...il.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
	Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: refuse wrapped vm_brk requests

On 07/11, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > and thus this patch fixes the error code returned by do_brk() in case
> > of overflow, now it returns -ENOMEM rather than zero. Perhaps
> >
> >         if (!len)
> >                 return 0;
> >         len = PAGE_ALIGN(len);
> >         if (!len)
> >                 return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > would be more clear but this is subjective.
>
> I'm fine either way.

Me too, so feel free to ignore,

> > I am wondering if we should shift this overflow check to the caller(s).
> > Say, sys_brk() does find_vma_intersection(mm, oldbrk, newbrk+PAGE_SIZE)
> > before do_brk(), and in case of overflow find_vma_intersection() can
> > wrongly return NULL.
> >
> > Then do_brk() will be called with len = -oldbrk, this can overflow or
> > not but in any case this doesn't look right too.
> >
> > Or I am totally confused?
>
> I think the callers shouldn't request a negative value, sure, but
> vm_brk should notice and refuse it.

Not sure I understand...

I tried to say that, with or without this change, sys_brk() should check
for overflow too, otherwise it looks buggy.

Oleg.