[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1307337131.10790.1530565424717.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 17:03:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Chris Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>,
rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH for 4.18 1/2] rseq: use __u64 for rseq_cs fields,
validate abort_ip < TASK_SIZE
----- On Jul 2, 2018, at 4:52 PM, Linus Torvalds torvalds@...ux-foundation.org wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 1:41 PM Mathieu Desnoyers
> <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
>>
>> - if (copy_from_user(rseq_cs, urseq_cs, sizeof(*rseq_cs)))
>> + if (copy_from_user(rseq_cs, urseq_cs, sizeof(*rseq_cs)) ||
>> + rseq_cs->abort_ip >= TASK_SIZE)
>> return -EFAULT;
>
> I think the abort_ip check should have the same error value as the
> other sanity checks, ie just be of this format:
>
>> if (rseq_cs->version > 0)
>> return -EINVAL;
OK, so I'll go for -EINVAL.
>
> also, I think you should check start_ip to be consistent. You kind of
> accidentally do it with the check for
>
> if (rseq_cs->abort_ip - rseq_cs->start_ip - rseq_cs->post_commit_offset)
The check is actually:
/* Ensure that abort_ip is not in the critical section. */
if (rseq_cs->abort_ip - rseq_cs->start_ip < rseq_cs->post_commit_offset)
return -EINVAL;
>
> but honestly, that has underflow issues already, so I think you want
> to basically make the check be
>
> if (rseq_cs->abort_ip >= TASK_SIZE)
> return -EINVAL;
that works.
>
> if (rseq_cs->start_ip >= rseq_cs->abort_ip)
> return -EINVAL;
this one does not work. We need to ensure that abort_ip
is not between [ start_ip, start_ip + post_commit_offset ]. The
check you propose validates that start_ip is below abort_ip,
which is bogus. For instance, abort_ip can very well be in a
different section of the binary, at an address either below
or above start_ip.
>
> which takes care of checkint start_ip, and also the underflow for the
> post_commit_offset check.
What underflow issues are you concerned with ?
>
> If somebody is depending on negative offsets, then that
> post_commit_offset logic is already wrong.
>
>> + usig = (u32 __user *)(unsigned long)(rseq_cs->abort_ip - sizeof(u32));
>> ret = get_user(sig, usig);
>
> That can underflow too, but I guess we can just rely on get_user()
> getting it right.
Yes, get_user() should handle that one properly.
Thanks,
Mathieu
>
> Linus
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists