linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/mpx: fix recursive munmap() corruption

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: <87k1faa2i0.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
Date:   Wed, 01 May 2019 20:32:55 +1000
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, rguenther@...e.de,
        mhocko@...e.com, vbabka@...e.cz, luto@...capital.net,
        x86@...nel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mpx: fix recursive munmap() corruption

Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> Le 23/04/2019 à 18:04, Dave Hansen a écrit :
>> On 4/23/19 4:16 AM, Laurent Dufour wrote:
...
>>> There are 2 assumptions here:
>>>   1. 'start' and 'end' are page aligned (this is guaranteed by __do_munmap().
>>>   2. the VDSO is 1 page (this is guaranteed by the union vdso_data_store on powerpc)
>> 
>> Are you sure about #2?  The 'vdso64_pages' variable seems rather
>> unnecessary if the VDSO is only 1 page. ;)
>
> Hum, not so sure now ;)
> I got confused, only the header is one page.
> The test is working as a best effort, and don't cover the case where 
> only few pages inside the VDSO are unmmapped (start > 
> mm->context.vdso_base). This is not what CRIU is doing and so this was 
> enough for CRIU support.
>
> Michael, do you think there is a need to manage all the possibility 
> here, since the only user is CRIU and unmapping the VDSO is not a so 
> good idea for other processes ?

Couldn't we implement the semantic that if any part of the VDSO is
unmapped then vdso_base is set to zero? That should be fairly easy, eg:

	if (start < vdso_end && end >= mm->context.vdso_base)
		mm->context.vdso_base = 0;


We might need to add vdso_end to the mm->context, but that should be OK.

That seems like it would work for CRIU and make sense in general?

cheers