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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrXrjxkL1pYu-SDnfNL+99N4h+yuLEzab5ytwczWNgFyRg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 25 Feb 2019 08:58:25 -0800
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Changbin Du <changbin.du@...il.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] kprobe: Do not use uaccess functions to access
 kernel memory that can fault

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 8:48 AM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 8:38 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 4:44 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 12:47:46 +0900
> > > Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Since kprobes handler runs in IRQ context, we can not use access_ok() in it.
> > > > (only on x86 + CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y)
> > >
> > > Is it really IRQ context or exception context? That is, one
> > > (interrupts) happen for any task, but exceptions happen because of the
> > > software that is executed (like a breakpoint). Although you can have a
> > > kprobe trigger in an interrupt handler (where user access wouldn't make
> > > sense anyway). But there should be no problem with user access from an
> > > exception handler.
> > >
> >
> > Can we just get rid of this might_sleep()?  access_ok() doesn't sleep
> > as far as I know.
>
> We do need to be aware of the userfaultfd case of getting held by
> userspace in the middle of a copy_*_user()... that's a whole other
> problem.
>

I sure hope that pagefault_disable() already takes care of this.
Otherwise we have major problems already.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ