netdev - Re: [PATCH 6/6] sysctl: pass kernel pointers to ->proc

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: <20200421074241.GB15772@lst.de>
Date:   Tue, 21 Apr 2020 09:42:41 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] sysctl: pass kernel pointers to ->proc_handler

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:17:18AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >  	if (error)
> > -		goto out;
> > +		goto out_free_buf;
> >  
> >  	/* careful: calling conventions are nasty here */
> 
> I think this comment can go now ;-)

It actually long predates the set_fs that was only added for BPF,
and goes back to:

330d57fb98a91 ("[PATCH] Fix sysctl unregistration oops (CVE-2005-2709)")
in the history.git tree.

> > -	} else {
> > -		error = table->proc_handler(table, write, buf, &count, ppos);
> > -	}
> > +	error = table->proc_handler(table, write, kbuf, &count, ppos);
> > +	if (error)
> > +		goto out_free_buf;
> > +
> > +	error = -EFAULT;
> > +	if (copy_to_user(ubuf, kbuf, count))
> > +		goto out_free_buf;
> 
> Can we skip this if !write?  Indeed, don't we have to in case the user has
> passed a pointer to a read-only memory page?

Indeed.