linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] syscalls: Restore address limit after a syscall

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:   Thu, 9 Feb 2017 11:31:35 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        René Nyffenegger <mail@...enyffenegger.ch>,
        Stephen Bates <stephen.bates@...s.com>,
        Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
        Milosz Tanski <milosz@...in.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
        <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] syscalls: Restore address limit after a syscall

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com> wrote:
> This patch prevents a syscall to modify the address limit of the
> caller. The address limit is kept by the syscall wrapper and restored
> just after the syscall ends.
>
> For example, it would mitigation this bug:
>
> - https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=990
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>
> ---
> Based on next-20170209
> ---
>  include/linux/syscalls.h | 5 ++++-
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/syscalls.h b/include/linux/syscalls.h
> index 91a740f6b884..a1b6a62a9849 100644
> --- a/include/linux/syscalls.h
> +++ b/include/linux/syscalls.h
> @@ -198,7 +198,10 @@ extern struct trace_event_functions exit_syscall_print_funcs;
>         asmlinkage long SyS##name(__MAP(x,__SC_LONG,__VA_ARGS__));      \
>         asmlinkage long SyS##name(__MAP(x,__SC_LONG,__VA_ARGS__))       \
>         {                                                               \
> -               long ret = SYSC##name(__MAP(x,__SC_CAST,__VA_ARGS__));  \
> +               long ret;                                               \
> +               mm_segment_t fs = get_fs();                             \
> +               ret = SYSC##name(__MAP(x,__SC_CAST,__VA_ARGS__));       \
> +               set_fs(fs);                                             \
>                 __MAP(x,__SC_TEST,__VA_ARGS__);                         \
>                 __PROTECT(x, ret,__MAP(x,__SC_ARGS,__VA_ARGS__));       \
>                 return ret;                                             \
> --
> 2.11.0.483.g087da7b7c-goog
>

I have a memory of Andy looking at this before, and there was some
problem with how a bunch of compat code would set fs and then re-call
the syscall... but I can't quite find the conversation. Andy, do you
remember the details?

This seems like an entirely reasonable thing to enforce for syscalls,
though I'm sure there's a gotcha somewhere. :)

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security