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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 24 Jan 2020 12:40:23 +0100
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] powerpc: Implement user_access_begin and friends



Le 23/01/2020 à 13:31, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
> Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> writes:
>> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr> writes:
>>> Today, when a function like strncpy_from_user() is called,
>>> the userspace access protection is de-activated and re-activated
>>> for every word read.
>>>
>>> By implementing user_access_begin and friends, the protection
>>> is de-activated at the beginning of the copy and re-activated at the
>>> end.
>>>
>>> Implement user_access_begin(), user_access_end() and
>>> unsafe_get_user(), unsafe_put_user() and unsafe_copy_to_user()
>>>
>>> For the time being, we keep user_access_save() and
>>> user_access_restore() as nops.
>>
>> That means we will run with user access enabled in a few more places, but
>> it's only used sparingly AFAICS:
>>
>>    kernel/trace/trace_branch.c:    unsigned long flags = user_access_save();
>>    lib/ubsan.c:    unsigned long flags = user_access_save();
>>    lib/ubsan.c:    unsigned long ua_flags = user_access_save();
>>    mm/kasan/common.c:      unsigned long flags = user_access_save();
>>
>> And we don't have objtool checking that user access enablement isn't
>> leaking in the first place, so I guess it's OK for us not to implement
>> these to begin with?
> 
> It looks like we can implement them on on all three KUAP
> implementations.
> 
> For radix and 8xx we just return/set the relevant SPR.
> 
> For book3s/32/kup.h I think we'd just need to add a KUAP_CURRENT case to
> allow_user_access()?

Can't do that, we don't want to keep the info in current->thread.kuap 
after user_access_save(), otherwise we might unexpectedly re-open access 
through an interrupt.

And if we use KUAP_CURRENT case of prevent_user_access(), it means we'll 
read current->thread.kuap twice.

So, just regenerate addr and end from the flags, and use 
allow_user_access() and prevent_user_access() as usual.

I'll have it in v4

Christophe

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ