linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] mce/copyin: fix to not SIGBUS when copying from user hits poison

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]

Date:   Thu, 8 Apr 2021 10:49:58 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Aili Yao <yaoaili@...gsoft.com>,
        HORIGUCHI NAOYA( 堀口　直也) 
        <naoya.horiguchi@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] mce/copyin: fix to not SIGBUS when copying from user
 hits poison

On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 02:43:10PM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 11:18:16PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 05:02:34PM -0700, Tony Luck wrote:
> > > Andy Lutomirski pointed out that sending SIGBUS to tasks that
> > > hit poison in the kernel copying syscall parameters from user
> > > address space is not the right semantic.
> > 
> > What does that mean exactly?
> 
> Andy said that a task could check a memory range for poison by
> doing:
> 
> 	ret = write(fd, buf, size);
> 	if (ret == size) {
> 		memory range is all good
> 	}
> 
> That doesn't work if the kernel sends a SIGBUS.
> 
> It doesn't seem a likely scenario ... but Andy is correct that
> the above ought to work.

We need to document properly what this is aiming to fix. He said
something yesterday along the lines of kthread_use_mm() hitting a SIGBUS
when a kthread "attaches" to an address space. I'm still unclear as to
how exactly that happens - there are only a handful of kthread_use_mm()
users in the tree...

> Yes. This is for kernel reading memory belongng to "current" task.

Provided "current" is really the task to which the poison page belongs.
That kthread_use_mm() thing sounded like the wrong task gets killed. But that
needs more details.

> Same in that the page gets unmapped. Different in that there
> is no SIGBUS if the kernel did the access for the user.

What is even the actual use case with sending tasks SIGBUS on poison
consumption? KVM? Others?

Are we documenting somewhere: "if your process gets a SIGBUS and this
and that, which means your page got offlined, you should do this and
that to recover"?

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette