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  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:   Sat, 16 Feb 2019 18:36:52 -0800
From:   Andy Lutomirski <>
To:     Al Viro <>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <>, Jann Horn <>,, the arch/x86 maintainers <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>, Borislav Petkov <>,
        kernel list <>,
        Pascal Bouchareine <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: uaccess: fix regression in unsafe_get_user

> On Feb 16, 2019, at 3:47 PM, 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.

I think we should avoid unaligned loads and do unaligned stores instead.

I would general expect that unaligned stores are a bit cheaper since they don’t need to complete for the comparisons to happen.

But I maintain my claim that this code should not be overrunning its input buffer into the next page, since it could have observable side effects.

> 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?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists