linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 10/18] m68k: fix access

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMuHMdWMhP5WgZ7CvOz53SyfizaAvLkHbeuds8G+_nZkwzhWWw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Feb 2022 10:00:39 +0100
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
        Brian Cain <bcain@...eaurora.org>,
        Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        Nick Hu <nickhu@...estech.com>,
        Greentime Hu <green.hu@...il.com>,
        Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@...nel.org>,
        Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>,
        Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        alpha <linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org>,
        arcml <linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-csky@...r.kernel.org,
        "open list:QUALCOMM HEXAGON..." <linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
        "open list:BROADCOM NVRAM DRIVER" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
        Openrisc <openrisc@...ts.librecores.org>,
        Parisc List <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
        sparclinux <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-um <linux-um@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "open list:TENSILICA XTENSA PORT (xtensa)" 
        <linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/18] m68k: fix access_ok for coldfire

Hi Arnd,

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 2:17 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org> wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
>
> While most m68k platforms use separate address spaces for user
> and kernel space, at least coldfire does not, and the other
> ones have a TASK_SIZE that is less than the entire 4GB address
> range.
>
> Using the default implementation of __access_ok() stops coldfire
> user space from trivially accessing kernel memory.
>
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>

Thanks for your patch!

> --- a/arch/m68k/include/asm/uaccess.h
> +++ b/arch/m68k/include/asm/uaccess.h
> @@ -12,14 +12,21 @@
>  #include <asm/extable.h>
>
>  /* We let the MMU do all checking */
> -static inline int access_ok(const void __user *addr,
> +static inline int access_ok(const void __user *ptr,
>                             unsigned long size)
>  {
> +       unsigned long limit = TASK_SIZE;
> +       unsigned long addr = (unsigned long)ptr;
> +
>         /*
>          * XXX: for !CONFIG_CPU_HAS_ADDRESS_SPACES this really needs to check
>          * for TASK_SIZE!
> +        * Removing this helper is probably sufficient.
>          */

Shouldn't the above comment block be removed completely,
as this is now implemented below?

> -       return 1;
> +       if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CPU_HAS_ADDRESS_SPACES))
> +               return 1;
> +
> +       return (size <= limit) && (addr <= (limit - size));
>  }

Any pesky compilers that warn (or worse with -Werror) about
"condition always true" for TASK_SIZE = 0xFFFFFFFFUL?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds