linux-kernel - Re: [PULL] vhost: cleanups and fixes

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: <20181102190129.GY32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Fri, 2 Nov 2018 19:01:29 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     mst@...hat.com, mark.rutland@....com,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        bijan.mottahedeh@...cle.com, gedwards@....com, joe@...ches.com,
        lenaic@...ard.fr, liang.z.li@...el.com, mhocko@...nel.org,
        mhocko@...e.com, stefanha@...hat.com, wei.w.wang@...el.com,
        jasowang@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PULL] vhost: cleanups and fixes

On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 10:15:56AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:10 AM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > Don't you take over the VM with "use_mm()" when you do the copies? So
> > yes, it's a kernel thread, but it has a user VM, and though that
> > should have the user limits.
> 
> Oooh. *Just* as I sent this, I realized that "use_mm()" doesn't update
> the thread addr_limit.
> 
> That actually looks like a bug to me - although one that you've
> apparently been aware of and worked around.
> 
> Wouldn't it be nicer to just make "use_mm()" do
> 
>         set_fs(USER_DS);
> 
> instead? And undo it on unuse_mm()?
> 
> And, in fact, maybe we should default kernel threads to have a zero
> address limit, so that they can't do any user accesses at all without
> doing this?

Try it and watch it fail to set initramfs up, let alone exec the init...

> Adding Al to the cc, because I think he's been looking at set_fs() in general.

It would be the right thing (with return to KERNEL_DS), but I'm not certain
if GPU users will survive - these two
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_amdkfd.h:157:                         use_mm(mmptr);                          \
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c:1799:          use_mm(kvm->mm);
I don't understand the call chains there (especially for the first one) well
enough to tell.