| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20220129150258.5896-1-dongyang.wang@windriver.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2022 23:02:58 +0800
From: Dongyang Wang <dongyang.wang@...driver.com>
To: <manfred@...orfullife.com>
CC: <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
<dave@...olabs.net>, <dongyang.wang@...driver.com>,
<ebiederm@...ssion.com>, <legion@...nel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <varad.gautam@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] To fix the below failure of handling page fault caused by the invalid input from user.
Hi Manfred and Andrew,
Thanks for your feedback.
>Hi Dongyang,
>
>On 1/26/22 03:42, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 17:19:52 +0800 Dongyang Wang <dongyang.wang@...driver.com> wrote:
>>
>>> [786058.308965] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 01000004
>>> [786058.316286] pgd = 38a99693
>>> [786058.319080] [01000004] *pgd=07800003, *pmd=00000000
>>> [786058.324056] Internal error: Oops: 206 [#1] PREEMPT SMP ARM
>>> [786058.324100] CPU: PID: Comm: Tainted: G C
>>> [786058.324102] Hardware name:
>>> [786058.324114] PC is at __copy_to_user_std+0x4c/0x3c4
>>> [786058.324120] LR is at store_msg+0xc0/0xe8
>>> [786058.324124] pc : [<c0c0587c>] lr : [<c0871d04>] psr: 20010013
>>> [786058.324126] sp : c3503ec4 ip : 00000000 fp : b4c9a660
>>> [786058.324129] r10: c4228dc0 r9 : c3502000 r8 : 00000ffc
>>> [786058.324132] r7 : 01000000 r6 : 546d3f8b r5 : b4911690 r4 : 00000ffc
>>> [786058.324134] r3 : 00000000 r2 : 00000f7c r1 : 01000004 r0 : b4911690
>>> [786058.324139] Flags: nzCv IRQs on FIQs on Mode SVC_32 ISA ARM Segment user
>>> [786058.324142] Control: 30c5387d Table: 0edc2040 DAC: 55555555
>>> [786058.324145] Process (pid: , stack limit = 0x25018bdf)
>
>Why is process and pid: empty? Is this some kind of kernel process calling?
The pid is 8369, it's a userspace app.
>
>>> [786058.324148] Stack: (0xc3503ec4 to 0xc3504000)
>>> [786058.324153] 3ec0: b4911690 546d3f8b 01000000 00000ffc b4911690 00000ffc 00000000
>>> [786058.324157] 3ee0: 00000ffc c0871d04 546d4f73 c3407801 c3503f28 c3407800 00000000 b49106a8
>>> [786058.324161] 3f00: c4228dc0 c087abd4 00000002 b49106a8 617b9d03 00000000 00000000 c121d508
>>> [786058.324165] 3f20: 00000000 bf06a1a8 d1b634cc 16b26e77 c5af5280 00000100 00000200 db806540
>>> [786058.324170] 3f40: 00000001 c121d508 00000008 0000005c 00000000 00010008 b49106a8 c0601208
>>> [786058.324173] 3f60: c3502000 00000040 b4c9a660 c087b474 c3503f78 c121d508 617b9d03 00000000
>>> [786058.324177] 3f80: 2303d6cc 00000115 c0601208 c121d508 b4c9a660 b4c9a660 00000001 b49106a8
>>> [786058.324181] 3fa0: 00000115 c06011dc b4c9a660 00000001 0000005c b49106a8 00010008 00000000
>>> [786058.324185] 3fc0: b4c9a660 00000001 b49106a8 00000115 00000000 b4c9b400 00000000 b4c9a660
>>> [786058.324189] 3fe0: 00000115 b4c9a650 b6b253bd b6b254b6 800d0030 0000005c 00000000 00000000
>>> [786058.324201] [<c0c0587c>] (__copy_to_user_std) from [<c0871d04>] (store_msg+0xc0/0xe8)
>>> [786058.324211] [<c0871d04>] (store_msg) from [<c087abd4>] (do_mq_timedreceive+0x29c/0x484)
>>> [786058.324218] [<c087abd4>] (do_mq_timedreceive) from [<c087b474>] (sys_mq_timedreceive+0x88/0xbc)
>>> [786058.324226] [<c087b474>] (sys_mq_timedreceive) from [<c06011dc>] (__sys_trace_return+0x0/0x10)
>>> [786058.324229] Exception stack(0xc3503fa8 to 0xc3503ff0)
>>> [786058.324233] 3fa0: b4c9a660 00000001 0000005c b49106a8 00010008 00000000
>>> [786058.324236] 3fc0: b4c9a660 00000001 b49106a8 00000115 00000000 b4c9b400 00000000 b4c9a660
>>> [786058.324239] 3fe0: 00000115 b4c9a650 b6b253bd b6b254b6
>>> [786058.324247] Code: ba000002 f5d1f03c f5d1f05c f5d1f07c (e8b151f8)
>>> [786058.601808] ---[ end trace 0000000000000002 ]---
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>> Please describe the circumstances under which this occurs.
The system crashed after running 9 days.
Unfortunately, we don't know how the user space APP running, it's a black box for us.
>>
>> Please also describe how your proposed patch fixes this.
Do some check for the input parameters from the userspace.
This crash may be caused by the APP, and I know the right way is to change the APP's behavior.
But I think maybe the kernel side also can do some checks for the input parameters? To improve the robustness?
I'm not sure. but I want to have a try, so I pushed this patch. Thanks :)
>>
>>> --- a/ipc/mqueue.c
>>> +++ b/ipc/mqueue.c
>>> @@ -1211,6 +1211,12 @@ static int do_mq_timedreceive(mqd_t mqdes, char __user *u_msg_ptr,
>>> goto out_fput;
>>> }
>>>
>>> + /* checks if buffer is invalid */
>>> + if ((unsigned long) u_msg_ptr < PAGE_SIZE) {
>>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>>> + goto out_fput;
>>> + }
>>> +
>
>I do not think that this will solve the problem: u_msg_ptr is user
>controlled.
>
>If < PAGE_SIZE causes issues, then 2^32-1, or PAGE_SIZE+1 will cause
>issues as well.
Thank you! you are right.
I want to check the validity of the u_msg_ptr. But it seems this check is not enough now.
>
>What is the kernel version where you have observed the issue?
>
The kernel version is 4.18.
>>> /*
>>> * msg_insert really wants us to have a valid, spare node struct so
>>> * it doesn't have to kmalloc a GFP_ATOMIC allocation, but it will
>>> @@ -1262,6 +1268,10 @@ static int do_mq_timedreceive(mqd_t mqdes, char __user *u_msg_ptr,
>>> store_msg(u_msg_ptr, msg_ptr, msg_ptr->m_ts)) {
>>> ret = -EFAULT;
>>> }
>>> +
>>> + if (msg_len < ret)
>>> + ret = -EMSGSIZE;
>>> +
>
>Why this change?
>
>EMSGSIZE means right now: wrong parameters, no message removed from the
>queue.
>
>But: in the line you modify, a message was already removed from the
>queue. Thus I would not consider EMSGSIZE as appropriate.
>
>>> free_msg(msg_ptr);
>>> }
>>> out_fput:
>>> --
>>> 2.26.1
Sorry, rewrite this part like this:
if (ret == 0) {
ret = msg_ptr->m_ts;
- if ((u_msg_prio && put_user(msg_ptr->m_type, u_msg_prio)) ||
- store_msg(u_msg_ptr, msg_ptr, msg_ptr->m_ts)) {
+ if (u_msg_prio && put_user(msg_ptr->m_type, u_msg_prio))
ret = -EFAULT;
- }
+ if (msg_len < ret)
+ ret = -EMSGSIZE;
+ if (store_msg(u_msg_ptr, msg_ptr, msg_ptr->m_ts))
+ ret = -EFAULT;
+
free_msg(msg_ptr);
}
Add a check before call the store_msg.
About the return value: EMSGSIZE.
How about this meaning? #define EMSGSIZE 90 /* Message too long */
Powered by blists - more mailing lists