[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202004021035.573BBBE9AA@keescook>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2020 10:38:32 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, airlied@...ux.ie,
daniel@...ll.ch, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hpa@...or.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/4] uaccess: Add user_read_access_begin/end and
user_write_access_begin/end
On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 07:03:28PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > What should we do about arm and s390? There we want a cookie passed
> > from beginning of block to its end; should that be a return value?
>
> That was the way I implemented it in January, see
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1227926/
>
> There was some discussion around that and most noticeable was:
>
> H. Peter (hpa) said about it: "I have *deep* concern with carrying state in
> a "key" variable: it's a direct attack vector for a crowbar attack,
> especially since it is by definition live inside a user access region."
I share this concern -- we want to keep user/kernel access as static as
possible. It should be provable with static analysis, etc (e.g. objtool
does this already for x86).
Since this doesn't disrupt existing R+W access, I'd prefer the design of
this series as-is.
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists