linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] powerpc/fault: Avoid heavy search_exception

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: <0e25f03d-9f59-b963-312c-c3ae1d7953a2@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Dec 2020 18:30:49 +0530
From:   "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, npiggin@...il.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] powerpc/fault: Avoid heavy
 search_exception_tables() verification

On 12/8/20 2:07 PM, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> search_exception_tables() is an heavy operation, we have to avoid it.
> When KUAP is selected, we'll know the fault has been blocked by KUAP.
> Otherwise, it behaves just as if the address was already in the TLBs
> and no fault was generated.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
> Reviewed-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
> ---
> v3: rebased
> v2: Squashed with the preceeding patch which was re-ordering tests that get removed in this patch.
> ---
>   arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c | 23 +++++++----------------
>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c
> index 3fcd34c28e10..1770b41e4730 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c
> @@ -210,28 +210,19 @@ static bool bad_kernel_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code,
>   		return true;
>   	}
>   
> -	if (!is_exec && address < TASK_SIZE && (error_code & (DSISR_PROTFAULT | DSISR_KEYFAULT)) &&
> -	    !search_exception_tables(regs->nip)) {
> -		pr_crit_ratelimited("Kernel attempted to access user page (%lx) - exploit attempt? (uid: %d)\n",
> -				    address,
> -				    from_kuid(&init_user_ns, current_uid()));
> -	}
> -
>   	// Kernel fault on kernel address is bad
>   	if (address >= TASK_SIZE)
>   		return true;
>   
> -	// Fault on user outside of certain regions (eg. copy_tofrom_user()) is bad
> -	if (!search_exception_tables(regs->nip))
> -		return true;
> -
> -	// Read/write fault in a valid region (the exception table search passed
> -	// above), but blocked by KUAP is bad, it can never succeed.
> -	if (bad_kuap_fault(regs, address, is_write))
> +	// Read/write fault blocked by KUAP is bad, it can never succeed.
> +	if (bad_kuap_fault(regs, address, is_write)) {
> +		pr_crit_ratelimited("Kernel attempted to %s user page (%lx) - exploit attempt? (uid: %d)\n",
> +				    is_write ? "write" : "read", address,
> +				    from_kuid(&init_user_ns, current_uid()));
>   		return true;
> +	}


Should we update bad_kuap_fault to check for !is_kernel_addr() and 
error_code & (DSISIR_PROT_FAULT | DSISIR_KEYFAULT). I am wondering 
whether we can take another fault w.r.t kernel address/user address and 
end up reporting that as KUAP fault?

>   
> -	// What's left? Kernel fault on user in well defined regions (extable
> -	// matched), and allowed by KUAP in the faulting context.
> +	// What's left? Kernel fault on user and allowed by KUAP in the faulting context.
>   	return false;
>   }
>   
> 


-aneesh