linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86, refcount: Implement fast refcount overflow protection

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: <CAGXu5j+e8u82zjcmhMhvhwgDMyJ4pAsi5vz-Z7J_i42d5nZq3A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Apr 2017 20:52:26 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        "axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>,
        David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
        <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86, refcount: Implement fast refcount overflow protection

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:25 PM, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:56 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>> This protection is a modified version of the x86 PAX_REFCOUNT
>> implementation from PaX/grsecurity. This speeds up the refcount_t API by
>> duplicating the existing atomic_t implementation with a single instruction
>> added to detect if the refcount has wrapped past INT_MAX (or below 0)
>> resulting in a signed value.
> [...]
>> +static __always_inline void refcount_dec(refcount_t *r)
>> +{
>> +       asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX "decl %0\n\t"
>> +               REFCOUNT_CHECK_UNDERFLOW(4)
>> +               : [counter] "+m" (r->refs.counter)
>> +               : : "cc", "cx");
>> +}
>
> What purpose do checks on decrement now have? The mitigation is only
> intended to deal with (positive) overflows, right? AFAICS if you hit this code,
> similar to the inc-from-0 case, you're already in a UAF situation?

Yeah, I think that's true, but as Peter has mentioned: it's better
than not having it. The inc path can be deterministic, and the dec
path can be lucky? :)

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security