linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.10 100/167] x86/pkeys: Check against max pkey to avoid overflows

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: <20170310084002.330561181@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 10 Mar 2017 10:09:03 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, shuah@...nel.org,
        kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: [PATCH 4.10 100/167] x86/pkeys: Check against max pkey to avoid overflows

4.10-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>

commit 58ab9a088ddac4efe823471275859d64f735577e upstream.

Kirill reported a warning from UBSAN about undefined behavior when using
protection keys.  He is running on hardware that actually has support for
it, which is not widely available.

The warning triggers because of very large shifts of integers when doing a
pkey_free() of a large, invalid value. This happens because we never check
that the pkey "fits" into the mm_pkey_allocation_map().

I do not believe there is any danger here of anything bad happening
other than some aliasing issues where somebody could do:

	pkey_free(35);

and the kernel would effectively execute:

	pkey_free(8);

While this might be confusing to an app that was doing something stupid, it
has to do something stupid and the effects are limited to the app shooting
itself in the foot.

Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Cc: shuah@...nel.org
Cc: kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170223222603.A022ED65@viggo.jf.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 arch/x86/include/asm/pkeys.h |   15 +++++++++------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/pkeys.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/pkeys.h
@@ -46,6 +46,15 @@ extern int __arch_set_user_pkey_access(s
 static inline
 bool mm_pkey_is_allocated(struct mm_struct *mm, int pkey)
 {
+	/*
+	 * "Allocated" pkeys are those that have been returned
+	 * from pkey_alloc().  pkey 0 is special, and never
+	 * returned from pkey_alloc().
+	 */
+	if (pkey <= 0)
+		return false;
+	if (pkey >= arch_max_pkey())
+		return false;
 	return mm_pkey_allocation_map(mm) & (1U << pkey);
 }
 
@@ -82,12 +91,6 @@ int mm_pkey_alloc(struct mm_struct *mm)
 static inline
 int mm_pkey_free(struct mm_struct *mm, int pkey)
 {
-	/*
-	 * pkey 0 is special, always allocated and can never
-	 * be freed.
-	 */
-	if (!pkey)
-		return -EINVAL;
 	if (!mm_pkey_is_allocated(mm, pkey))
 		return -EINVAL;