| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <201910031438.A67C40B97C@keescook>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 14:38:43 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Allison Randal <allison@...utok.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Semmle Security Reports <security-reports@...mle.com>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-mapping: Lift address space checks out of debug code
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 10:42:45AM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 03/10/2019 00:58, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 10:15:43PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > > Hi Kees,
> > >
> > > On 2019-10-02 9:46 pm, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > > As we've seen from USB and other areas, we need to always do runtime
> > > > checks for DMA operating on memory regions that might be remapped. This
> > > > consolidates the (existing!) checks and makes them on by default. A
> > > > warning will be triggered for any drivers still using DMA on the stack
> > > > (as has been seen in a few recent reports).
> > > >
> > > > Suggested-by: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> > > > ---
> > > > include/linux/dma-debug.h | 8 --------
> > > > include/linux/dma-mapping.h | 8 +++++++-
> > > > kernel/dma/debug.c | 16 ----------------
> > > > 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/dma-debug.h b/include/linux/dma-debug.h
> > > > index 4208f94d93f7..2af9765d9af7 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/dma-debug.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/dma-debug.h
> > > > @@ -18,9 +18,6 @@ struct bus_type;
> > > > extern void dma_debug_add_bus(struct bus_type *bus);
> > > > -extern void debug_dma_map_single(struct device *dev, const void *addr,
> > > > - unsigned long len);
> > > > -
> > > > extern void debug_dma_map_page(struct device *dev, struct page *page,
> > > > size_t offset, size_t size,
> > > > int direction, dma_addr_t dma_addr);
> > > > @@ -75,11 +72,6 @@ static inline void dma_debug_add_bus(struct bus_type *bus)
> > > > {
> > > > }
> > > > -static inline void debug_dma_map_single(struct device *dev, const void *addr,
> > > > - unsigned long len)
> > > > -{
> > > > -}
> > > > -
> > > > static inline void debug_dma_map_page(struct device *dev, struct page *page,
> > > > size_t offset, size_t size,
> > > > int direction, dma_addr_t dma_addr)
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h b/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
> > > > index 4a1c4fca475a..2d6b8382eab1 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
> > > > @@ -583,7 +583,13 @@ static inline unsigned long dma_get_merge_boundary(struct device *dev)
> > > > static inline dma_addr_t dma_map_single_attrs(struct device *dev, void *ptr,
> > > > size_t size, enum dma_data_direction dir, unsigned long attrs)
> > > > {
> > > > - debug_dma_map_single(dev, ptr, size);
> > > > + /* DMA must never operate on stack or other remappable places. */
> > > > + WARN_ONCE(is_vmalloc_addr(ptr) || !virt_addr_valid(ptr),
> > >
> > > This stands to absolutely cripple I/O performance on arm64, because every
> > > valid call will end up going off and scanning the memblock list, which is
> > > not something we want on a fastpath in non-debug configurations. We'd need a
> > > much better solution to the "pfn_valid() vs. EFI no-map" problem before this
> > > might be viable.
> >
> > Ah! Interesting. I didn't realize this was fast-path (I don't know the
> > DMA code at all). I thought it was more of a "one time setup" before
> > actual DMA activity started.
>
> That's strictly true, it's just that many workloads can involve tens of
> thousands of "one time"s per second ;)
>
> Overhead on the dma_map_* paths has shown to have a direct impact on
> throughput in such situations, hence various optimisation effort in IOVA
> allocation for IOMMU-based DMA ops, and the recent work to remove indirect
> calls entirely for the common dma-direct/SWIOTLB cases.
>
> > Regardless, is_vmalloc_addr() is extremely light (a bounds check), and is the
> > most important part of this as far as catching stack-based DMA attempts.
> > I thought virt_addr_valid() was cheap too, but I see it's much heavier on
> > arm64.
> >
> > I just went to compare what the existing USB check does, and it happens
> > immediately before its call to dma_map_single(). Both checks are simple
> > bounds checks, so it shouldn't be an issue:
> >
> > if (is_vmalloc_addr(urb->setup_packet)) {
> > WARN_ONCE(1, "setup packet is not dma capable\n");
> > return -EAGAIN;
> > } else if (object_is_on_stack(urb->setup_packet)) {
> > WARN_ONCE(1, "setup packet is on stack\n");
> > return -EAGAIN;
> > }
> >
> > urb->setup_dma = dma_map_single(
> > hcd->self.sysdev,
> > urb->setup_packet,
> > sizeof(struct usb_ctrlrequest),
> >
> >
> > In the USB case, it'll actually refuse to do the operation. Should
> > dma_map_single() similarly fail? I could push these checks down into
> > dma_map_single(), which would be a no-change on behavior for USB and
> > gain the checks on all other callers...
>
> I think it would be reasonable to pull the is_vmalloc_addr() check inline,
> as that probably covers 90+% of badness (especially given vmapped stacks),
> and as you say should be reliably cheap everywhere. Callers are certainly
> expected to use dma_mapping_error() and handle failure, so refusing to do a
> bogus mapping operation should be OK API-wise - ultimately if a driver goes
> ahead and uses DMA_MAPPING_ERROR as an address anyway, that's not likely to
> be any *more* catastrophic than if it did the same with whatever nonsense
> virt_to_phys() of a vmalloc address had returned.
What do you think about the object_is_on_stack() check? That does a
dereference through "current" to find the stack bounds...
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists