linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] binfmt_elf: Dump smaller VMAs first in ELF cores

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: <202502191731.16FBB1EB@keescook>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 17:36:37 -0800
From: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Michael Stapelberg <michael@...pelberg.ch>,
	Brian Mak <makb@...iper.net>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] binfmt_elf: Dump smaller VMAs first in ELF cores

On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 04:39:41PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 at 11:52, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, I think we need to make this a tunable. Updating the kernel breaks
> > elftools, which isn't some weird custom corner case. :P
> 
> I wonder if we could also make the default be "no sorting" if the
> vma's are all fairly small...
> 
> IOW, only trigger the new behavior when nity actually *matters*.
> 
> We already have the code to count how big the core dump is, it's that
> 
>                 cprm->vma_data_size += m->dump_size;
> 
> in dump_vma_snapshot() thing, so I think this could all basically be a
> one-liner that does the sort() call only if that vma_data_size is
> larger than the core-dump limit, or something like that?
> 
> That way, the normal case could basically work for everybody, and the
> system tunable would be only for people who want to force a certain
> situation.
> 
> Something trivial like this (ENTIRELY UNTESTED) patch, perhaps:
> 
>   --- a/fs/coredump.c
>   +++ b/fs/coredump.c
>   @@ -1256,6 +1256,10 @@ static bool dump_vma_snapshot(struct
> coredump_params *cprm)
>                   cprm->vma_data_size += m->dump_size;
>           }
> 
>   +       /* Only sort the vmas by size if they don't all fit in the
> core dump */
>   +       if (cprm->vma_data_size < cprm->limit)
>   +               return true;
>   +
>           sort(cprm->vma_meta, cprm->vma_count, sizeof(*cprm->vma_meta),
>                   cmp_vma_size, NULL);
> 
> Hmm?

Oh! That's a good idea. In theory, a truncated dump is going to be
traditionally "unusable", so a sort shouldn't hurt tools that are
expecting a complete dump.

Brian, are you able to test this for your case?

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook