linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 02/11] mm: Hardened usercopy

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: <20160722174551.jddle6mf7zlq6xmb@treble>
Date:	Fri, 22 Jul 2016 12:45:51 -0500
From:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
	Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
	PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>,
	Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>,
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
	Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
	Laura Abbott <labbott@...oraproject.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
	"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	sparclinux <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
	<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/11] mm: Hardened usercopy

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 11:34:25AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> wrote:
> > Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> writes:
> >
> >> diff --git a/mm/usercopy.c b/mm/usercopy.c
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 000000000000..e4bf4e7ccdf6
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/mm/usercopy.c
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,234 @@
> > ...
> >> +
> >> +/*
> >> + * Checks if a given pointer and length is contained by the current
> >> + * stack frame (if possible).
> >> + *
> >> + *   0: not at all on the stack
> >> + *   1: fully within a valid stack frame
> >> + *   2: fully on the stack (when can't do frame-checking)
> >> + *   -1: error condition (invalid stack position or bad stack frame)
> >> + */
> >> +static noinline int check_stack_object(const void *obj, unsigned long len)
> >> +{
> >> +     const void * const stack = task_stack_page(current);
> >> +     const void * const stackend = stack + THREAD_SIZE;
> >
> > That allows access to the entire stack, including the struct thread_info,
> > is that what we want - it seems dangerous? Or did I miss a check
> > somewhere else?
> 
> That seems like a nice improvement to make, yeah.
> 
> > We have end_of_stack() which computes the end of the stack taking
> > thread_info into account (end being the opposite of your end above).
> 
> Amusingly, the object_is_on_stack() check in sched.h doesn't take
> thread_info into account either. :P Regardless, I think using
> end_of_stack() may not be best. To tighten the check, I think we could
> add this after checking that the object is on the stack:
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP
>         stackend -= sizeof(struct thread_info);
> #else
>         stack += sizeof(struct thread_info);
> #endif
> 
> e.g. then if the pointer was in the thread_info, the second test would
> fail, triggering the protection.

FWIW, this won't work right on x86 after Andy's
CONFIG_THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK patches get merged.

-- 
Josh