netdev - Re: [PATCHv3 2/2] vhost_net: a kernel-level virtio server

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:20:22 +0300
From:	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hpa@...or.com,
	gregory.haskins@...il.com, Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...taire.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 2/2] vhost_net: a kernel-level virtio server

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 04:38:17PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 03:10:54PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 20 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 05:27:07PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 19 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 03:46:44PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday 19 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Leaving that aside for now, you could replace VHOST_NET_SET_SOCKET,
> > > > > > VHOST_SET_OWNER, VHOST_RESET_OWNER
> > > > > 
> > > > > SET/RESET OWNER is still needed: otherwise if you share a descriptor
> > > > > with another process, it can corrupt your memory.
> > > > 
> > > > How? The point of using user threads is that you only ever access the
> > > > address space of the thread that called the ioctl.
> > > 
> > > Think about this example with processes A and B sharing an fd:
> > > A does SET_USED_ADDRESS
> > > B does SET_USED_ADDRESS
> > > A does VHOST_NET_SPLICE
> > > See how stuff gets written into a random place in memory of A?
> > 
> > Yes, I didn't think of that. It doesn't seem like a big problem
> > though, because it's a clear misuse of the API (I guess your
> > current code returns an error for one of the SET_USED_ADDRESS
> > ioctls), so I would see it as a classic garbage-in garbage-out
> > case.
> > 
> > It may even work in the case that the sharing of the fd resulted
> > from a fork, where the address contains the same buffer in both
> > processes. I can't think of a reason why you would want to use
> > it like that though.
> 
> It doesn't matter that I don't want this: allowing 1 process corrupt
> another's memory is a security issue.  Once you get an fd, you want to
> be able to use it without worrying that a bug in another process will
> crash yours.
> 
If B's SET_USED_ADDRESS fails how one process can corrupt a memory of
other process?

--
			Gleb.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html