linux-kernel - Re: PROBLEM: fanotify

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+G9fYtKKmoYUJpPFLBtFVB6MRJwJTsVjtYtRcXmJxc5PbHAZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 Nov 2020 01:01:30 +0530
From:   Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Paweł Jasiak <pawel@...iak.xyz>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: fanotify_mark EFAULT on x86

On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 at 15:50, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
>
> On Tue 24-11-20 09:45:07, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:46:51PM +0100, Paweł Jasiak wrote:
> > > On 23/11/20, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > OK, with a help of Boris Petkov I think I have a fix that looks correct
> > > > (attach). Can you please try whether it works for you? Thanks!
> > >
<trim>
>
> Thanks for checking! I didn't realize I needed to change the ifdefs as well
> (I missed that bit in 121b32a58a3a). So do I understand correctly that
> whenever the kernel is 64-bit, 64-bit syscall args (e.g. defined as u64) are
> passed just fine regardless of whether the userspace is 32-bit or not?
>
> Also how about other 32-bit archs? Because I now realized that
> CONFIG_COMPAT as well as the COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE6() is also utilized by
> other 32-bit archs (I can see a reference to compat_sys_fanotify_mark e.g.
> in sparc, powerpc, and other args). So I probably need to actually keep
> that for other archs but do the modification only for x86, don't I?
>
> So something like attached patch?

I have tested the attached patch on i386 and qemu_i386 and the reported problem
got fixed.

Test links,
https://lkft.validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/1985236#L1176
https://lkft.validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/1985238#L801


-- 
Linaro LKFT
https://lkft.linaro.org