linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: Avoid premature usercopy failure

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: <20210713165957.GA30304@willie-the-truck>
Date:   Tue, 13 Jul 2021 17:59:58 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc:     catalin.marinas@....com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Chen Huang <chenhuang5@...wei.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Avoid premature usercopy failure

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 03:27:46PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> Al reminds us that the usercopy API must only return complete failure
> if absolutely nothing could be copied. Currently, if userspace does
> something silly like giving us an unaligned pointer to Device memory,
> or a size which overruns MTE tag bounds, we may fail to honour that
> requirement when faulting on a multi-byte access even though a smaller
> access could have succeeded.
> 
> Add a mitigation to the fixup routines to fall back to a single-byte
> copy if we faulted on a larger access before anything has been written
> to the destination, to guarantee making *some* forward progress. We
> needn't be too concerned about the overall performance since this should
> only occur when callers are doing something a bit dodgy in the first
> place. Particularly broken userspace might still be able to trick
> generic_perform_write() into an infinite loop by targeting write() at
> an mmap() of some read-only device register where the fault-in load
> succeeds but any store synchronously aborts such that copy_to_user() is
> genuinely unable to make progress, but, well, don't do that...
> 
> CC: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Reported-by: Chen Huang <chenhuang5@...wei.com>
> Suggested-by: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
> Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
> ---
> 
> I've started trying the "replay" approach for figuring out more precise
> remainders in general, but that quickly got more complicated with
> rebasing the fault address passing stuff, so I'm resending this now as
> a point fix and will continue to explore that as an improvement on top.

Is it possible to add/extend a selftest for this, please? I think Catalin
mentioned that before, but not sure if he got anywhere with it.

Will