linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] /dev/mem: Bail out upon SIGKILL when reading memory.

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:   Fri, 23 Aug 2019 06:17:36 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        syzbot <syzbot+8ab2d0f39fb79fe6ca40@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] /dev/mem: Bail out upon SIGKILL when reading memory.

On 2019/08/23 2:11, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 9:42 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>> By the way, write_mem() worries me whether there is possibility of replacing
>>>>> kernel code/data with user-defined memory data supplied from userspace.
>>>>> If write_mem() were by chance replaced with code that does
>>>>>
>>>>>    while (1);
>>>>>
>>>>> we won't be able to return from write_mem() even if we added fatal_signal_pending() check.
>>>>> Ditto for replacing local variables with unexpected values...
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you mean here, but I haven't
>>>> had my morning coffee...  Any hints as to an example?
>>>
>>> Probably similar idea: "lockdown: Restrict /dev/{mem,kmem,port} when the kernel is locked down"
>>>
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/drivers/char/mem.c?h=next-20190822&id=9b9d8dda1ed72e9bd560ab0ca93d322a9440510e
>>>
>>> Then, syzbot might want to blacklist writing to /dev/mem .
>>
>> syzbot should probably blacklist that now, you can do a lot of bad
>> things writing to that device node :(
> 
> Agree. It wasn't supposed to reach it, but it figured out how to mount
> devfs and then open "./mem"  bypassing all checks. Fortunately there
> is a config to disable /dev/mem, so we are going to turn it off.
> 

Can't we introduce a kernel config which selectively blocks specific actions?
If we don't need to worry about bypassing blacklist checks, we will be able to
enable syz_execute_func() again.

----------
 			ptr = xlate_dev_mem_ptr(p);
 			if (!ptr) {
 				if (written)
 					break;
 				return -EFAULT;
 			}
+#ifndef CONFIG_KERNEL_BUILT_FOR_FUZZ_TESTING
 			copied = copy_from_user(ptr, buf, sz);
+#else
+			copied = 0;
+#endif
 			unxlate_dev_mem_ptr(p, ptr);
----------