linux-kernel - RE: WARNING in __kernel

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: <e81e2721e8ce4612b0fc6098d311d378@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date:   Tue, 29 Sep 2020 08:06:32 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Christoph Hellwig' <hch@....de>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
CC:     "syzbot+51177e4144d764827c45@...kaller.appspotmail.com" 
        <syzbot+51177e4144d764827c45@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com" <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
        "viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: RE: WARNING in __kernel_read (2)

From: Christoph Hellwig
> Sent: 29 September 2020 07:56
> 
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 11:46:48PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > Linus asked for it.  What is the call chain that we hit it with?
> >
> > Call Trace:
> >  kernel_read+0x52/0x70 fs/read_write.c:471
> >  kernel_read_file fs/exec.c:989 [inline]
> >  kernel_read_file+0x2e5/0x620 fs/exec.c:952
> >  kernel_read_file_from_fd+0x56/0xa0 fs/exec.c:1076
> >  __do_sys_finit_module+0xe6/0x190 kernel/module.c:4066
> >  do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x70 arch/x86/entry/common.c:46
> >  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
> >
> > See the email from syzbot for the full details:
> > https://lkml.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/000000000000da992305b02e9a51@google.com
> 
> Passing a fs without read permissions definitively looks bogus for
> the finit_module syscall.  So I think all we need is an extra check
> to validate the fd.

The sysbot test looked like it didn't even have a regular file.
I thought I saw a test for that - but it might be in a different path.

You do need to ensure that 'exec' doesn't need read access.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)