linux-kernel - Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v9 1/4] syscalls: Verify address limit before returning to user-mode

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: <CAGXu5jL6FPuShBpZfi6+XHqOk4gxocUJRYPHT5oR3HYh3xm+sA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 12 May 2017 14:00:10 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Pavel Tikhomirov <ptikhomirov@...tuozzo.com>,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        René Nyffenegger <mail@...enyffenegger.ch>,
        Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v9 1/4] syscalls: Verify address
 limit before returning to user-mode

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:30:44PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 09:21:06PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:30:02PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> > > I'm clearly not explaining things well enough. I shouldn't say
>> > > "corruption", I should say "malicious manipulation". The methodology
>> > > of attacks against the stack are quite different from the other kinds
>> > > of attacks like use-after-free, heap overflow, etc. Being able to
>> > > exhaust the kernel stack (either due to deep recursion or unbounded
>> > > alloca())
>> >
>> > I really hope we don't have alloca() use in the kernel.  Do you have
>> > evidence to support that assertion?
>> >
>> > IMHO alloca() (or similar) should not be present in any kernel code
>> > because we have a limited stack - we have kmalloc() etc for that kind
>> > of thing.
>>
>> On stack variable length arrays get implemented by the compiler doing
>> alloca(), and we sadly have a few of those around.
>
> I hope their size is appropriately limited, but something tells me it
> would be foolish to assume that.
>
>> But yes, fully agreed on the desirability of alloca() and things.
>
> Hmm, I wonder if -fno-builtin-alloca would prevent those... it looks
> like it certainly would prevent an explicit alloca() call.

Building with -Werror=vla is exciting. :)

A lot of it is in crypto (which are relatively static sizes, just
using function callbacks), but there is plenty more.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security