linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/24] net: add a new sockptr

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: <20200720174322.GA21785@lst.de>
Date:   Mon, 20 Jul 2020 19:43:22 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
        linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, linux-hams@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-can@...r.kernel.org, dccp@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-decnet-user@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-wpan@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        mptcp@...ts.01.org, lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        rds-devel@....oracle.com, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
        tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-x25@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/24] net: add a new sockptr_t type

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 09:37:48AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> How does this not introduce a massive security hole when
> CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_NON_OVERLAPPING_ADDRESS_SPACE?
> 
> AFAICS, userspace can pass in a pointer >= TASK_SIZE,
> and this code makes it be treated as a kernel pointer.

Yeah, we'll need to validate that before initializing the pointer.

But thinking this a little further:  doesn't this mean any
set_fs(KERNEL_DS) that has other user pointers than the one it is
intended for has the same issue?  Pretty much all of these are gone
in mainline now, but in older stable kernels there might be some
interesting cases, especially in the compat ioctl handlers.