netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] kprobe: Do not use uaccess functions to access kernel memory that can fault

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: <20190222.133842.1637029078039923178.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Fri, 22 Feb 2019 13:38:42 -0800 (PST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:     alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, mhiramat@...nel.org,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, luto@...capital.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        changbin.du@...il.com, jannh@...gle.com, keescook@...omium.org,
        luto@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] kprobe: Do not use uaccess functions to access
 kernel memory that can fault

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 13:20:58 -0800

> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 11:27 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On bpf side the bpf_probe_read() helper just calls probe_kernel_read()
>> and users pass both user and kernel addresses into it and expect
>> that the helper will actually try to read from that address.
> 
> As mentioned earlier in the thread, that's actually fundamentally broken.
> 
> There are architectures that have physically separate address spaces,
> with the same pointer value in both kernel and user space.
> 
> They are rare, but they exist. At least sparc32 and the old 4G:4G split x86.

And sparc64.

> So a pointer really should always unambiguously always be explicitly
> _either_ a kernel pointer, or a user pointer. You can't have "this is
> a pointer", and then try to figure it out by looking at the value.
> That may happen to work on x86-64, but it's literally a "happen to
> work on the most common architectures", not a design thing.

Don't be surprised if we see more separation like this in the future too.

So it's not a smart thing to code against even if you can discount all of
the examples Linus gives above.