[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200722075620.GA26554@lst.de>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 09:56:20 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, linux-hams@...r.kernel.org,
linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-can@...r.kernel.org, dccp@...r.kernel.org,
linux-decnet-user@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-wpan@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
mptcp@...ts.01.org, lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
rds-devel@....oracle.com, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-x25@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/24] net: add a new sockptr_t type
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:55:43AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 07:43:22PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 09:37:48AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > How does this not introduce a massive security hole when
> > > CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_NON_OVERLAPPING_ADDRESS_SPACE?
> > >
> > > AFAICS, userspace can pass in a pointer >= TASK_SIZE,
> > > and this code makes it be treated as a kernel pointer.
> >
> > Yeah, we'll need to validate that before initializing the pointer.
> >
> > But thinking this a little further: doesn't this mean any
> > set_fs(KERNEL_DS) that has other user pointers than the one it is
> > intended for has the same issue? Pretty much all of these are gone
> > in mainline now, but in older stable kernels there might be some
> > interesting cases, especially in the compat ioctl handlers.
>
> Yes. I thought that eliminating that class of bug is one of the main
> motivations for your "remove set_fs" work. See commit 128394eff343
> ("sg_write()/bsg_write() is not fit to be called under KERNEL_DS") for a case
> where this type of bug was fixed.
>
> Are you aware of any specific cases that weren't already fixed? If there are
> any, they need to be urgently fixed.
current mainline has almost no set_fs left, and setsockopt seems
pretty much safe. But if we go back a long term stable release or two
I bet I'd find one or two.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists