linux-kernel - Re: set_memory_* (was: Re: BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request in bpf_int_jit

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180705072130.GA4534@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Jul 2018 09:21:30 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        syzbot+a4eb8c7766952a1ca872@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: set_memory_* (was: Re: BUG: unable to handle kernel paging
 request in bpf_int_jit_compile)


* Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
> > In any case, for pairs like set_memory_ro() + set_memory_rw() that are also used
> > outside of bpf e.g. STRICT_MODULE_RWX and friends which are mostly default these
> > days for some archs, is the choice to not check errors from there by design or from
> > historical context that it originated from 'debugging code' in that sense (DEBUG_RODATA /
> > DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX) earlier? Also if no-one checks for errors (and if that would
> > infact be the recommendation it is agreed upon) should the API be changed to void,
> > or generally should actual error checking occur on these + potential rollback; but
> > then question is what about restoring part from prior set_memory_ro() via set_memory_rw()?
> > Kees/others, do you happen to have some more context on recommended use around this
> > by any chance? (Would probably also help if we add some doc around assumptions into
> > include/linux/set_memory.h for future users.)
> 
> If set_memory_* can fail, I think it needs to be __must_check, and all
> the callers need to deal with it gracefully. Those markings aren't
> "advisory": they're expected to actually do what they say.

Yes - but there's probably a few exceptions like early init code where the calls 
not succeeding are signs of bugs - so any error return should probably be 
WARN_ON()ed about.

Thanks,

	Ingo