netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] filter: add a security check at install time

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:	Thu, 2 Dec 2010 18:59:26 +0800
From:	Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, hagen@...u.net,
	wirelesser@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@...curity.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] filter: add a security check at install time

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> Le jeudi 02 décembre 2010 à 09:53 +0100, Eric Dumazet a écrit :
>> Le jeudi 02 décembre 2010 à 16:11 +0800, Changli Gao a écrit :
>>
>> > It seems correct to me now.
>> >
>> > Acked-by: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
>> >
>>
>> Thanks for reviewing Changli.
>>
>> Now I am thinking about not denying the filter installation, but change
>> the problematic LOAD M(1)  and LOADX M(1)  by LOADI #0 (BPF_S_LD_IMM
>> K=0) and LOADIX #0 (BPF_S_LDX_IMM K=0)
>>
>> (ie pretend the value of memory is 0, not a random value taken from
>> stack)
>>
>>
>> [PATCH v3 net-next-2.6] filter: add a security check at install time
>
> Doh, I sent a version with old (V1) check_load_and_stores() name, here
> is a V4 with shorter name check_loads() as mentioned in changelog.
>
> Sorry for the mess.
>
> [PATCH v4 net-next-2.6] filter: add a security check at install time
>
> We added some security checks in commit 57fe93b374a6
> (filter: make sure filters dont read uninitialized memory) to close a
> potential leak of kernel information to user.
>
> This added a potential extra cost at run time, while we can perform a
> check of the filter itself, to make sure a malicious user doesnt try to
> abuse us.
>
> This patch adds a check_loads() function, whole unique purpose is to
> make this check, allocating a temporary array of mask. We scan the
> filter and propagate a bitmask information, telling us if a load M(K) is
> allowed because a previous store M(K) is guaranteed.
>
> If we detect a problematic load M(K), we replace it by a load of
> immediate value 0
>

Since RAM of BPF isn't initialized to zero and this kind of
instruction sequences is invalid, I think we'd better return -EINVAL
instead of mangling the instruction silently. I prefer V2.

-- 
Regards,
Changli Gao(xiaosuo@...il.com)
--
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