linux-kernel - Re: KMSAN: uninit-value in snapshot_compat

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: <20200309181154.GB1073@sol.localdomain>
Date:   Mon, 9 Mar 2020 11:11:54 -0700
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To:     Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
Cc:     syzbot <syzbot+af962bf9e7e27bccd025@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        len.brown@...el.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: KMSAN: uninit-value in snapshot_compat_ioctl

On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 12:53:28PM +0100, 'Alexander Potapenko' via syzkaller-bugs wrote:
> > > Looks like a KMSAN false positive?  As far as I can tell, the memory is being
> > > initialized by put_user() called under set_fs(KERNEL_DS).
> 
> Why? put_user() doesn't write to kernel memory, instead it copies a
> value to the userspace.
> That's why KMSAN performs kmsan_check_memory() on it.
> It would actually be better if KMSAN printed an kernel-infoleak warning instead.

When under set_fs(KERNEL_DS), the userspace access functions like put_user() and
copy_to_user() can write to kernel memory.  It's discouraged and people have
been trying to get rid of uses of set_fs(), but a lot still remain, since
sometimes it's useful to allow code to operate on both user and kernel memory.
A common example is kernel_read().

> 
> > Although, it also looks like the problematic code can just be removed, since
> > always sizeof(compat_loff_t) == sizeof(loff_t).  I'll send a patch to do that...
> 
> Thanks!
> 

- Eric