linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] memdup

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: <20180108145720.GI725@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:57:20 -0200
From:   Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] memdup_user() and friends

On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 02:16:56AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
...
> 
> Everything else is definitely fine with GFP_USER - it's stuff like "copy of ioctl
> arguments in an ioctl never issued by the kernel code, must have come straight from
> ioctl(2)" and things like that.  IMO we should simply switch memdup_user() to
> GFP_USER and be done with that.  Limiting the size ought to be done by callers and
> IMO there's no point in __GFP_NOWARN there.

I don't really follow the __GFP_NOWARN part here. You mean that there
is no point on using __GFP_NOWARN there?

I would think pretty much otherwise. There is no point in logging the
trace as it is always a totally recoverable fault.

> 
> What I propose is
> 	* switch memdup_user() to GFP_USER
> 	* add vmemdup_user(), using kvmalloc() instead of kmalloc() (also with
> GFP_USER)
> 	* switch open-coded instances of the latter to calling it
> 	* switch some of the memdup_user() callers to vmemdup_user() - the ones that
> don't need physically contiguous copy and might be larger than a couple of pages.
> 	* add apriori bounds on size in the call sites that do not have those yet -
> that'll require comments from maintainers of the code in question in some cases.
> 
> Objections?

None. Good timing, btw. I also got reports about such open size
allocations and I'm finishing a patchset for SCTP to limit those.
Will migrate sctp code to vmemdup_user() when available.

Thanks,
Marcelo