linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 10/10] kmod: add a sanity check on module loading

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: <CAB=NE6Wd4jvUVS6pNds0yND_PX-MMpVjtvnJOHsNWX_5H7Mdkg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Dec 2016 07:08:25 -0600
From:   "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:     Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        rgoldwyn@...e.com, hare <hare@...e.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>, rwright@....com,
        Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@....de>,
        Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>, martin.wilck@...e.com,
        Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, shuah@...nel.org,
        DSterba@...e.com, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.o rg" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jessica Yu <jeyu@...hat.com>,
        Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan <subashab@...eaurora.org>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: [RFC 10/10] kmod: add a sanity check on module loading

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
> "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org> writes:
>> OK -- if userspace messes up again it may be a bit hard to prove
>> unless we have a validation debug thing in place, would such a thing
>> in debug form be reasonable ?
>
> That makes perfect sense.  Untested hack:
>
> diff --git a/fs/filesystems.c b/fs/filesystems.c
> index c5618db110be..e5c90e80c7d3 100644
> --- a/fs/filesystems.c
> +++ b/fs/filesystems.c
> @@ -275,9 +275,10 @@ struct file_system_type *get_fs_type(const char *name)
>         int len = dot ? dot - name : strlen(name);
>
>         fs = __get_fs_type(name, len);
> -       if (!fs && (request_module("fs-%.*s", len, name) == 0))
> +       if (!fs && (request_module("fs-%.*s", len, name) == 0)) {
>                 fs = __get_fs_type(name, len);
> -
> +               WARN_ONCE(!fs, "request_module fs-%.*s succeeded, but still no fs?\n", len, name);
> +       }
>         if (dot && fs && !(fs->fs_flags & FS_HAS_SUBTYPE)) {
>                 put_filesystem(fs);
>                 fs = NULL;

This is precisely a type of debug patch we had added first to verify "WTF".

> Maybe a similar hack for try_then_request_module(), but many places seem
> to open-code request_module() so it's not as trivial...

Right, out of ~350 request_module() calls (not included try requests)
only ~46 check the return value. Hence a validation check, and come to
think of it, *this* was the issue that originally had me believing
that in some places we might end up in a null deref --if those open
coded request_module() calls assume the driver is loaded there could
be many places where a NULL is inevitable. Granted, I agree they
should be fixed, we could add a grammar rule to start nagging at
driver developers for started, but it does beg the question also of
what a tightly knit validation for modprobe might look like, and hence
this patch and now the completed not-yet-posted alias work.

Would it be worthy as a kconfig kmod debugging aide for now? I can
follow up with a semantic patch to nag about checking the return value
of request_module(), and we can  have 0-day then also complain about
new invalid uses.

  Luis