netdev - Re: [RFC] get_compat_msghdr(): get rid of field-by-field copyin

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: <20170714013750.GC13102@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Fri, 14 Jul 2017 02:37:50 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] get_compat_msghdr(): get rid of field-by-field copyin

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 08:25:14PM -0700, David Miller wrote:

> looks harmless, or if there is a bug in there I can't see it.
> 
> But whatever it is, that same problem could be hiding in some of these
> other transformations as well.
> 
> I think the bug might be that we are corrupting the user's stack
> somehow.  But the two user copies in that commit look perfectly fine
> to my eyes.
> 
> There shouldn't be any padding in that compat_rlimit structure, so
> it's not like we're copying extra bytes.  Well, we'd be exposing
> kernel stack memory if that were the case.

There isn't any padding in compat_rlimit; unfortunately, it was
mistakenly declared as struct rlimit instead.  Which, of course,
has different member sizes - otherwise we wouldn't have needed
a compat syscall there in the first place.

It was harder to spot since I combined move and a transformation
into one commit.  Shouldn't have done so...  Had those been two
separate commits, the bug would've stood out immediately.  Shouldn't
be the case here...

> Color me stumped, but cautious about ACK'ing these networking
> compat changes.