linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] uaccess: Add non-pagefault user-space read functions

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:   Tue, 26 Feb 2019 13:16:05 +0900
From:   Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Changbin Du <changbin.du@...il.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] uaccess: Add non-pagefault user-space read
 functions

Hi Linus,

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 09:00:57 -0800
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:06 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > Would something like so work for people?
> 
> Looks reasonable to me.
> 
> > Why not keep it simple:
> >
> >         mm_segment_t old_fs = get_fs();
> >
> >         set_fs(USER_DS);
> >         ret = __strncpy...();
> >         set_fs(old_fd);
> >
> >         return ret;
> 
> So none of this code looks sane. First odd, there's no real reason to
> use __get_user(). The thing should never be used. It does the whole
> stac/clac for every byte.

Ah, I got it. I just followed the commit bd28b14591b9 ("x86: remove more
uaccess_32.h complexity") as same as strnlen_from_unsafe(). No special
reason.

> 
> In the copy_from_user() case, I suggested re-doing it as one common
> routine without the set_fs() dance for the "already there" case to
> simplify error handling. Here it doesn't do that.
> 
> But honestly, I think for the strncpy case, we could just do
> 
>   long strncpy_from_unsafe_user(char *dst, const void __user *src, long count)
>   {
>       long ret;
>       mm_segment_t old_fs = get_fs();
> 
>       set_fs(USER_DS);
>       pagefault_disable();
>       ret = strncpy_from_user(dst, src, count);
>       pagefault_enable();
>       set_fs(old_fs);
>       return ret;
>   }
> 
> and be done with it. Efficient and simple.

Yes, it looks good to me :)

> 
> Note: the above will *only* work for actual user addresses, because
> strncpy_from_user() does that proper range check.

I think we can reuse do_strncpy_from_user() for strncpy_from_unsafe().
(so maybe we should move it from mm/maccess.c to lib/strncpy_from_user.c?)

As Kees pointed out, I think it is a good chance to sort the behavior of
these strXcpy APIs to match their names.

Thank you,

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