linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] usercopy: Remove HARDENED_USERCOPY

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:   Mon, 10 Jun 2019 15:30:55 -0700
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usercopy: Remove HARDENED_USERCOPY_PAGESPAN

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 02:32:43PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 09:11:42PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 05:03:08PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 08:41:43PM -0400, Laura Abbott wrote:
> > > > On 5/10/19 3:43 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > > > This feature continues to cause more problems than it solves[1]. Its
> > > > > intention was to check the bounds of page-allocator allocations by using
> > > > > __GFP_COMP, for which we would need to find all missing __GFP_COMP
> > > > > markings. This work has been on hold and there is an argument[2]
> > > > > that such markings are not even the correct signal for checking for
> > > > > same-allocation pages. Instead of depending on BROKEN, this just removes
> > > > > it entirely. It can be trivially reverted if/when a better solution for
> > > > > tracking page allocator sizes is found.
> > > > > 
> > > > > [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org/msg37479.html
> > > > > [2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190415022412.GA29714@bombadil.infradead.org
> > > > 
> > > > I agree the page spanning is broken but is it worth keeping the
> > > > checks against __rodata __bss etc.?
> > > 
> > > They're all just white-listing later checks (except RODATA which is
> > > doing a cheap RO test which is redundant on any architecture with actual
> > > rodata...) so they don't have any value in staying without the rest of
> > > the page allocator logic.
> > > 
> > > > > -	/* Is the object wholly within one base page? */
> > > > > -	if (likely(((unsigned long)ptr & (unsigned long)PAGE_MASK) ==
> > > > > -		   ((unsigned long)end & (unsigned long)PAGE_MASK)))
> > > > > -		return;
> > > > > -
> > > > > -	/* Allow if fully inside the same compound (__GFP_COMP) page. */
> > > > > -	endpage = virt_to_head_page(end);
> > > > > -	if (likely(endpage == page))
> > > > > -		return;
> > > 
> > > We _could_ keep the mixed CMA/reserved/neither check if we really wanted
> > > to, but that's such a corner case of a corner case, I'm not sure it's
> > > worth doing the virt_to_head_page() across the whole span to figure
> > > it out.
> > 
> > I'd delete that first check, because it's a subset of the second check,
> 
> It seemed easier to short-circuit with a math test before doing the slightly more expensive virt_to_head_page(end) call. Do you think that's sensible?
> 
> > 
> > 	/* Is the object wholly within a single (base or compound) page? */
> > 	endpage = virt_to_head_page(end);
> > 	if (likely(endpage == page))
> > 		return;
> > 
> > 	/*
> > 	 * If the start and end are more than MAX_ORDER apart, they must
> > 	 * be from separate allocations
> > 	 */
> > 	if (n >= (PAGE_SIZE << MAX_ORDER))
> > 		usercopy_abort("spans too many pages", NULL, to_user, 0, n);
> > 
> > 	/*
> > 	 * If neither page is compound, we can't tell if the object is
> > 	 * within a single allocation or not
> > 	 */
> > 	if (!PageCompound(page) && !PageCompound(endpage))
> > 		return;
> > 
> > > I really wish we had size of allocation reliably held somewhere. We'll
> > > need it for doing memory tagging of the page allocator too...
> > 
> > I think we'll need to store those allocations in a separate data structure
> > on the side.  As far as the rest of the kernel is concerned, those struct
> > pages belong to them once the page allocator has given them.
> 
> Okay, let me work up a page-type refactoring while allocation size can
> stay back-burnered.
> 
> -- 
> Kees Cook

Any progress on this patch?

- Eric