linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] iov_iter: allow iov_iter_get_pages

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:   Mon, 13 Feb 2017 09:56:18 +0000
From:   Steve Capper <steve.capper@...aro.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        ceph-devel <ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
        lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org,
        V9FS Developers <v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] iov_iter: allow iov_iter_get_pages_alloc to
 allocate more pages per call

On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 11:28:48AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > On x86 it does.  I don't see anything equivalent in mm/gup.c one, and the
> > only kinda-sorta similar thing (access_ok() in __get_user_pages_fast()
> > there) is vulnerable to e.g. access via kernel_write().
> 
> Yeah, access_ok() is bogus. It needs to just check against TASK_SIZE
> or whatever.
> 
> > doesn't look promising - access_ok() is never sufficient.  Something like
> > _PAGE_USER tests in x86 one solves that problem, but if anything similar
> > works for HAVE_GENERIC_RCU_GUP I don't see it.  Thus the question re
> > what am I missing here...
> 
> Ok, I definitely agree that it looks like __get_user_pages_fast() just
> needs to get rid of the access_ok() and replace it with a proper check
> for the user address space range.
> 
> Looks like arm[64] and powerpc.are the current users. Adding in some
> people involved with the original submission a few years ago.

Hi,

[ Apologies for my late reply, I was on vacation then catchup... ]

> 
> I do note that the x86 __get_user_pages_fast() thing looks dodgy too.
> 
> In particular, we do it right in the *real* get_user_pages_fast(), see
> commit 7f8189068726 ("x86: don't use 'access_ok()' as a range check in
> get_user_pages_fast()"). But then the same bug was re-introduced when
> the "irq safe" version was merged. As well as in the GENERIC_RCU_GUP
> version.
> 
> Gaah. Apparently PeterZ copied the old buggy version before the fix
> when he added __get_user_pages_fast() in commit 465a454f254e ("x86,
> mm: Add __get_user_pages_fast()").
> 
> I guess it could be considered a merge error (both happened during the
> 2.6.31 merge window).
> 

Okay so looking at what we have for access_ok(.) on arm64, my
understanding is that we perform a 65-bit add/compare (in assembler) to
see whether or not the range is below the current_thread_info->addr_limit.
So I think this is a roundabout way of checking for no-wrap around and <= TASK_SIZE.

Looking at powerpc, I see it's a little different...

So if it sounds reasonable to folk I was going to send a patch to
replace the call to access_ok(.) with a wraparound + TASK_SIZE check
written explicitly in C? (and remove some of the comments talking about
access_ok(.)).

Cheers,
-- 
Steve