linux-kernel - Re: Runtime failure running sh:qemu in -next due to 'sh: fix copy_from

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: <20160916205938.GB29767@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Fri, 16 Sep 2016 13:59:38 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
        linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Subject: Re: Runtime failure running sh:qemu in -next due to 'sh: fix
 copy_from_user()'

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 08:45:33PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:12:18PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I see the following runtime failure when running a 'sh' image with qemu in -next.
> 
> > Bisect points to commit 6e050503a150 ("sh: fix copy_from_user()"). Bisect log is
> > attached.
> 
> Does reverting it recover the thing?
> 
Yes, reverting 6e050503a150 fixes the problem.

I added a BUG() into the "if (unlikely())" below, but it doesn't catch,
and I still get the ip: OVERRUN errors. Which leaves me a bit puzzled.

Guenter

> The change in question is
>         if (__copy_size && __access_ok(__copy_from, __copy_size))
> -               return __copy_user(to, from, __copy_size);
> +               __copy_size = __copy_user(to, from, __copy_size);
> +
> +       if (unlikely(__copy_size))
> +               memset(to + (n - __copy_size), 0, __copy_size);
>  
>         return __copy_size;
> 
> so the only difference is zeroing the tail of destination; return value
> remains the same in all cases (what used to be return foo(); becomes
> __copy_size = foo(); /* operations not modifying __copy_size */
> return __copy_size;) and that memset is 100% legitimate -
> copy_from_user(to, from, n) returning m means that the last m bytes of
> [to .. to + n - 1] have not been copied into and must be zeroed.
> 
> If it affects anything at all, we have a serious problem somewhere in the
> caller.