linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 09/11] vsprintf: Prevent crash when dereferencing invalid pointers

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180427124721.z2vrsrlohxzyv6vh@pathway.suse.cz>
Date:   Fri, 27 Apr 2018 14:47:21 +0200
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Tobin C . Harding" <me@...in.cc>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 09/11] vsprintf: Prevent crash when dereferencing
 invalid pointers

On Wed 2018-04-25 18:10:54, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 13:12 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > We already prevent crash when dereferencing some obviously broken
> > pointers. But the handling is not consistent. Sometimes we print
> > "(null)"
> > only for pure NULL pointer, sometimes for pointers in the first
> > page and sometimes also for pointers in the last page (error codes).
> > 
> > Note that printk() call this code under logbuf_lock. Any recursive
> > printks are redirected to the printk_safe implementation and the
> > messages
> > are stored into per-CPU buffers. These buffers might be eventually
> > flushed
> > in printk_safe_flush_on_panic() but it is not guaranteed.
> 
> > +static const char *check_pointer_access(const void *ptr)
> > +{
> > +	char byte;
> > +
> > +	if (!ptr)
> > +		return "(null)";
> > +
> > +	if (probe_kernel_address(ptr, byte))
> > +		return "(efault)";
> > +
> > +	return NULL;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static bool valid_pointer_access(char **buf, char *end, const void
> > *ptr,
> > +				 struct printf_spec spec)
> > +{
> > +	const char *err_msg;
> > +
> > +	err_msg = check_pointer_access(ptr);
> > +	if (err_msg) {
> > +		*buf = valid_string(*buf, end, err_msg, spec);
> > +		return false;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return true;
> > +}
> 
> I would preserve similar style of buf pointer handling, i.e.
> 
> static char *valid_pointer_access(char **buf, char *end,
> 				  const void *ptr, struct printf_spec spec)
> {
> 	const char *err_msg;
> 
> 	err_msg = check_pointer_access(ptr);
> 	if (err_msg)
> 		return = valid_string(*buf, end, err_msg, spec);
> 
> 	return NULL;
> }

Heh, I actually started with exactly this code. But it caused confusion.
The name suggests that it should return true on success and NULL
is false:

	if (!valid_pointer_access())
		return err;

Any better naming/code is welcome.

Best Reagrds,
Petr