linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mm: usercopy: Warn vmalloc/module address in check_heap

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:   Tue, 28 Dec 2021 12:51:03 +0800
From:   Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
CC:     Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mm: usercopy: Warn vmalloc/module address in
 check_heap_object()


On 2021/12/27 1:33, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
> Le 25/12/2021 à 13:06, Kefeng Wang a écrit :
>> virt_addr_valid() could be insufficient to validate the virt addr
>> on some architecture, which could lead to potential BUG which has
>> been found on arm64/powerpc64.
>>
>> Let's add WARN_ON to check if the virt addr is passed virt_addr_valid()
>> but is a vmalloc/module address.
> I think that's the responsibility of the architecture and doesn't
> deserve a WARN_ON() in generic code.
>
> The generic code cannot check all what architectures do wrong.
>
> Eventually you can do some testing at startup, maybe with
> CONFIG_DEBUG_VM_PGTABLE, but I don't think we should have such
> verification in functions like check_heap_object()

Ok, we could find other better place to add a virt_to_valid() check

instead of this one.

>> Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>    mm/usercopy.c | 2 ++
>>    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/usercopy.c b/mm/usercopy.c
>> index b3de3c4eefba..ce83e0b137dd 100644
>> --- a/mm/usercopy.c
>> +++ b/mm/usercopy.c
>> @@ -228,6 +228,8 @@ static inline void check_heap_object(const void *ptr, unsigned long n,
>>    	if (!virt_addr_valid(ptr))
>>    		return;
>>    
>> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(is_vmalloc_or_module_addr(ptr));
>> +
>>    	/*
>>    	 * When CONFIG_HIGHMEM=y, kmap_to_page() will give either the
>>    	 * highmem page or fallback to virt_to_page(). The following