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]

Date:   Fri, 12 May 2017 23:57:55 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        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>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        René Nyffenegger <mail@...enyffenegger.ch>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        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>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        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>,
        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 05:47:55PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:

> > Seriously, look at these beasts.  Overwriting ->addr_limit is nowhere
> > near
> > the top threat.  If attacker can overwrite thread_info, you have
> > lost.
> 
> That is why THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK exists. It moves
> the struct thread_info to a location away from the
> stack, which means a stack overflow will not overwrite
> the thread_info.

... in which case such attacks on ->addr_limit also become a non-issue.

AFAICS, we are mixing several unrelated issues here:
	* amount of places where set_fs() is called.  Sure, reducing it
is a good idea and we want to move to primitives like kernel_write() et.al.
Fewer users => lower odds of screwing it up.
	* making sure that remaining callers are properly paired.  Ditto.
	* switching to ->read_iter()/->write_iter() where it makes sense.
Again, no problem with that.
	* providing sane environment for places like perf/oprofile.  Again,
a good idea, and set_fs(USER_DS) is only a part of what's needed there.
	* switching _everything_ to ->read_iter()/->write_iter().  Flat-out
insane and AFAICS nobody is signing up for that.
	* getting rid of set_fs() entirely.  I'm afraid that it's not feasible
without the previous one and frankly, I don't see much point.
	* sanity-checking on return to userland.  Maybe useful, maybe not.
	* taking thread_info out of the way of stack overflows.  Reasonable,
but has very little to do with the rest of that.
	* protecting against Lovecraftian horrors slithering in from the outer
space only to commit unspeakable acts against ->addr_limit and ignoring much
tastier targets next to it, but then what do you expect from degenerate
spawn of Great Old Ones - sanity?