linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] kprobe: Do not use uaccess functions to access kernel memory that can fault

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: <20190223234852.1a1df1b93ca6045b94c69b26@kernel.org>
Date:   Sat, 23 Feb 2019 23:48:52 +0900
From:   Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To:     Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Changbin Du <changbin.du@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] kprobe: Do not use uaccess functions to access
 kernel memory that can fault

Hi,

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 16:52:52 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:

> > ---
> >  kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c | 10 +---------
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c b/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c
> > index d5fb09ebba8b..9eaf07f99212 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c
> > @@ -861,22 +861,14 @@ static const struct file_operations kprobe_profile_ops = {
> >  static nokprobe_inline int
> >  fetch_store_strlen(unsigned long addr)
> >  {
> > -	mm_segment_t old_fs;
> >  	int ret, len = 0;
> >  	u8 c;
> >  
> > -	old_fs = get_fs();
> > -	set_fs(KERNEL_DS);
> > -	pagefault_disable();
> > -

BTW, compared with probe_kernel_read() implementation, this function
lacks current->kernel_uaccess_faults_ok modification here.

I would like to know whether we can avoid this issue if we tweak this flag.

Thank you,

> >  	do {
> > -		ret = __copy_from_user_inatomic(&c, (u8 *)addr + len, 1);
> > +		ret = probe_mem_read(&c, (u8 *)addr + len, 1);
> >  		len++;
> >  	} while (c && ret == 0 && len < MAX_STRING_SIZE);
> >  
> > -	pagefault_enable();
> > -	set_fs(old_fs);
> > -
> >  	return (ret < 0) ? ret : len;
> >  }
> >  
> > -- 
> > 2.20.1
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>