linux-kernel - Re: SLUB: sysfs lets root force slab order below required minimum, causing memory 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: <202003031820.7A0C4FF302@keescook>
Date:   Tue, 3 Mar 2020 18:22:37 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: SLUB: sysfs lets root force slab order below required minimum,
 causing memory corruption

On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 05:26:14PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2020, Jann Horn wrote:
> 
> > Hi!
> > 
> > FYI, I noticed that if you do something like the following as root,
> > the system blows up pretty quickly with error messages about stuff
> > like corrupt freelist pointers because SLUB actually allows root to
> > force a page order that is smaller than what is required to store a
> > single object:
> > 
> >     echo 0 > /sys/kernel/slab/task_struct/order
> > 
> > The other SLUB debugging options, like red_zone, also look kind of
> > suspicious with regards to races (either racing with other writes to
> > the SLUB debugging options, or with object allocations).
> > 
> 
> Thanks for the report, Jann.  To address the most immediate issue, 
> allowing a smaller order than allowed, I think we'd need something like 
> this.
> 
> I can propose it as a formal patch if nobody has any alternate 
> suggestions?
> ---
>  mm/slub.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -3598,7 +3598,7 @@ static int calculate_sizes(struct kmem_cache *s, int forced_order)
>  	 */
>  	size = ALIGN(size, s->align);
>  	s->size = size;
> -	if (forced_order >= 0)
> +	if (forced_order >= slab_order(size, 1, MAX_ORDER, 1))
>  		order = forced_order;
>  	else
>  		order = calculate_order(size);

Seems reasonable!

For the race concerns, should this logic just make sure the resulting
order can never shrink? Or does it need much stronger atomicity?

-- 
Kees Cook