linux-kernel - Re: [uaccess] 780464aed0: WARNING:at_arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h:#strnlen

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: <20190305145306.GL32477@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 5 Mar 2019 15:53:06 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        g@...ez.programming.kicks-ass.net
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.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>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, yhs@...com, lkp@...org
Subject: Re: [uaccess] 780464aed0:
 WARNING:at_arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h:#strnlen_user/0x

On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 10:58:01PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:

> Could you tell me why WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_task()) is needed in access_ok()?

That came from here:

  lkml.kernel.org/r/20190225145240.GB32534@...ez.programming.kicks-ass.net

Because in-irq usage is dodgy, since we don't actually know what mm or
ds it loaded.

> > I dislike that whole KERNEL_DS thing, but obviously that's not something
> > that's going away.
> > 
> > Would something like:
> > 
> > 	WARN_ON_ONCE(!(in_task || segment_eq(get_fs(), USER_DS)))
> > 
> > Work? Then we allow KERNEL_DS in task context, but for interrupt and
> > others require USER_DS.
> 
> But what would this mean? I can't understand why we limit using
> access_ok() so strictly and narrow the cases.

Because it's been a source of bugs. Any sanity checking we can put in
seems like a good thing at this point.