linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] x86: Verify access

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: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1701192139490.5358@nanos>
Date:   Thu, 19 Jan 2017 21:50:36 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
cc:     David Smith <dsmith@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] x86: Verify access_ok() context

On Thu, 19 Jan 2017, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:

> Hi, Thomas -
> 
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 07:12:48PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > [...]
> > It does matter very much, because the fact that the warning triggers tells
> > me that it's placed in code which is NOT executed in task context.
> > [...]
> > We are not papering over problems.
> 
> Understood.  We were interpreting the comments around access_ok to
> mean that the underlying hazard condition was different (stricter)
> than in_task().  If the warning could be made to match that hazard
> condition more precisely, then safe but non-in_task() callers can use
> access_ok() without the warning.

Well, if you are not in thread context then the check is pointless:

	__range_not_ok(addr, size, user_addr_max())

and:

#define user_addr_max() (current->thread.addr_limit.seg)

So what guarantees when you are not in context of current, i.e. in thread
context, that the addr/size which is checked against the limits of current
actually belongs to current?

I assume this is about systemtap modules. Can you please explain what you
are trying to achieve? I guess you know that you actually access current,
but then we need a seperate special function and not relaxing of the
checks.

Thanks,

	tglx