[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170509064522.anusoikaalvlux3w@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 08:45:22 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
René Nyffenegger <mail@...enyffenegger.ch>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Pavel Tikhomirov <ptikhomirov@...tuozzo.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v9 1/4] syscalls: Verify address
limit before returning to user-mode
* Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:
> What about a simple coccinelle script to test for this type of thing?
> We write it once, add it to the in-kernel body of tests, and then 0-day
> runs it on all trees all the time. That should catch this type of
> issue, like all of the other "bad programming bus" that the tool
> currently catches.
Yeah, that would work - but today most of our coccinelle scripts are still pretty
verbose, and I think it's important to make this a different category of
coccinelle script, which is .config driven where a loud warning yells at us.
I.e. force the 'zero warnings tolerated' model.
I also noticed that Coccinelle builds are pretty slow, so it would still make
sense to have a performance oriented static checking facility that does not have
the performance baggage of high level functional languages.
I.e. either integrate it into Sparse - or start a kernel integrated static
analysis tooling project that would only follow control flow initially - which is
what we need here I believe.
We only have ~115 code blocks in the kernel that set/restore KERNEL_DS, it would
be a pity to add a runtime check to every system call ...
We could also add a runtime check to oops handling to make sure we don't leak
KERNEL_DS through kernel crashes, to ease worries about CVE-2010-4258.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists