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: <20180129123840.529040411@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 29 Jan 2018 13:56:37 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.9 13/66] mm/mmap.c: do not blow on PROT_NONE MAP_FIXED holes in the stack

4.9-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>

commit 561b5e0709e4a248c67d024d4d94b6e31e3edf2f upstream.

Commit 1be7107fbe18 ("mm: larger stack guard gap, between vmas") has
introduced a regression in some rust and Java environments which are
trying to implement their own stack guard page.  They are punching a new
MAP_FIXED mapping inside the existing stack Vma.

This will confuse expand_{downwards,upwards} into thinking that the
stack expansion would in fact get us too close to an existing non-stack
vma which is a correct behavior wrt safety.  It is a real regression on
the other hand.

Let's work around the problem by considering PROT_NONE mapping as a part
of the stack.  This is a gros hack but overflowing to such a mapping
would trap anyway an we only can hope that usespace knows what it is
doing and handle it propely.

Fixes: 1be7107fbe18 ("mm: larger stack guard gap, between vmas")
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170705182849.GA18027@dhcp22.suse.cz
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Debugged-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 mm/mmap.c |    6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- a/mm/mmap.c
+++ b/mm/mmap.c
@@ -2240,7 +2240,8 @@ int expand_upwards(struct vm_area_struct
 		gap_addr = TASK_SIZE;
 
 	next = vma->vm_next;
-	if (next && next->vm_start < gap_addr) {
+	if (next && next->vm_start < gap_addr &&
+			(next->vm_flags & (VM_WRITE|VM_READ|VM_EXEC))) {
 		if (!(next->vm_flags & VM_GROWSUP))
 			return -ENOMEM;
 		/* Check that both stack segments have the same anon_vma? */
@@ -2324,7 +2325,8 @@ int expand_downwards(struct vm_area_stru
 	if (gap_addr > address)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 	prev = vma->vm_prev;
-	if (prev && prev->vm_end > gap_addr) {
+	if (prev && prev->vm_end > gap_addr &&
+			(prev->vm_flags & (VM_WRITE|VM_READ|VM_EXEC))) {
 		if (!(prev->vm_flags & VM_GROWSDOWN))
 			return -ENOMEM;
 		/* Check that both stack segments have the same anon_vma? */


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ