linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/slub.c: add a naive detection of double free or corruption

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: <46e2d4b9-94a4-76e3-be25-144f26f74fb6@linux.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:23:44 +0300
From:   Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
        keescook@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/slub.c: add a naive detection of double free or
 corruption

On 17.07.2017 20:54, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 07:45:07PM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote:
>> Add an assertion similar to "fasttop" check in GNU C Library allocator:
>> an object added to a singly linked freelist should not point to itself.
>> That helps to detect some double free errors (e.g. CVE-2017-2636) without
>> slub_debug and KASAN. Testing with hackbench doesn't show any noticeable
>> performance penalty.
> 
>>  {
>> +	BUG_ON(object == fp); /* naive detection of double free or corruption */
>>  	*(void **)(object + s->offset) = fp;
>>  }
> 
> Is BUG() the best response to this situation?  If it's a corruption, then
> yes, but if we spot a double-free, then surely we should WARN() and return
> without doing anything?

Hello Matthew,

Double-free leads to the memory corruption too, since the next two kmalloc()
calls return the same address to their callers. And we can spot it early here.

--
Alexander