linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: uaccess: fix regression in unsafe_get

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]

Date:   Sun, 17 Feb 2019 00:02:37 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        baloo@...di.net, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Pascal Bouchareine <pascal@...di.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: uaccess: fix regression in unsafe_get_user

On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 11:47:02PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 02:50:15PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 
> > What is the actual problem?  We’re not actually demand-faulting this data, are we?  Are we just overrunning the buffer because the from_user helpers are too clever?  Can we fix it for real by having the fancy helpers do *aligned* loads so that they don’t overrun the buffer?  Heck, this might be faster, too.
> 
> Unaligned _stores_ are not any cheaper, and you'd get one hell of
> extra arithmetics from trying to avoid both.  Check something
> like e.g. memcpy() on alpha, where you really have to keep all
> accesses aligned, both on load and on store side.
> 
> Can't we just pad the buffers a bit?  Making sure that name_buf
> and symlink_buf are _not_ followed by unmapped pages shouldn't
> be hard.  Both are allocated by kmalloc(), so...
> 
> What am I missing here?

... the fact that read_info() might skip copying if everything it
wants is already in the buffer passed by decompressor ;-/  It's
been a while since I looked into that code...