linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/18] maccess: remove strncpy_from

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: <20200514184419.0fbf548ccf883c097d94573a@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 14 May 2020 18:44:19 +0900
From:   Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-um <linux-um@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/18] maccess: remove strncpy_from_unsafe

On Wed, 13 May 2020 19:43:24 -0700
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 6:00 PM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > But we should likely at least disallow it entirely on platforms where
> > > we really can't - or pick one hardcoded choice. On sparc, you really
> > > _have_ to specify one or the other.
> >
> > OK. BTW, is there any way to detect the kernel/user space overlap on
> > memory layout statically? If there, I can do it. (I don't like
> > "if (CONFIG_X86)" thing....)
> > Or, maybe we need CONFIG_ARCH_OVERLAP_ADDRESS_SPACE?
> 
> I think it would be better to have a CONFIG variable that
> architectures can just 'select' to show that they are ok with separate
> kernel and user addresses.
> 
> Because I don't think we have any way to say that right now as-is. You
> can probably come up with hacky ways to approximate it, ie something
> like
> 
>     if (TASK_SIZE_MAX > PAGE_OFFSET)
>         .... they overlap ..
> 
> which would almost work, but..

It seems TASK_SIZE_MAX is defined only on x86 and s390, what about
comparing STACK_TOP_MAX with PAGE_OFFSET ?
Anyway, I agree that the best way is introducing a CONFIG.

Thank you,

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>