All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] arm64: optional paranoid __{get,put}_user checks
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 15:28:29 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5j+eb+41XRorgAVURKEsixiMYgtcmpKwQzJ3Mct_yw1G6Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0f2d5f89-2939-06ec-9b59-b19f828d8968@redhat.com>

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11/01/2017 05:05 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 04:56:39PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
>>> On 10/26/2017 02:09 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>>> In Prague, Kees mentioned that it would be nice to have a mechanism to
>>>> catch bad __{get,put}_user uses, such as the recent CVE-2017-5123 [1,2]
>>>> issue with unsafe_put_user() in waitid().
>>>>
>>>> These patches allow an optional access_ok() check to be dropped in
>>>> arm64's __{get,put}_user() primitives. These will then BUG() if a bad
>>>> user pointer is passed (which should only happen in the absence of an
>>>> earlier access_ok() check).
>>
>>> Turning on the option fails as soon as we hit userspace. On my buildroot
>>> based environment I get the help text for ld.so (????) and then a message
>>> about attempting to kill init.
>>
>> Ouch. Thanks for the report, and sorry about this.
>>
>> The problem is that I evaluate the ptr argument twice in
>> __{get,put}_user(), and this may have side effects.
>>
>> e.g. when the ELF loader does things like:
>>
>>   __put_user((elf_addr_t)p, sp++)
>>
>> ... we increment sp twice, and write to the wrong user address, leaving
>> sp corrupt.
>>
>> I have an additional patch [1] to fix this, which is in my
>> arm64/access-ok branch [2].
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mark.
>>
>> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mark/linux.git/commit/?h=arm64/access-ok&id=ebb7ff83eb53b8810395d5cf48712a4ae6d678543
>> [2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mark/linux.git/log/?h=arm64/access-ok
>>
>
> Thanks, the updated patch works. I wrote an LKDTM test to verify
> the expected behavior (__{get,put}_user panic whereas {get,put}_user
> do not). You're welcome to add Tested-by or I can wait for v2.

Nice. :) Out of curiosity, can you check if this correctly BUG()s on a
waitid() call when the fixes are reverted?

96ca579a1ecc ("waitid(): Avoid unbalanced user_access_end() on
access_ok() error")
1c9fec470b81 ("waitid(): Add missing access_ok() checks")

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: keescook@chromium.org (Kees Cook)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/2] arm64: optional paranoid __{get,put}_user checks
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 15:28:29 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5j+eb+41XRorgAVURKEsixiMYgtcmpKwQzJ3Mct_yw1G6Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0f2d5f89-2939-06ec-9b59-b19f828d8968@redhat.com>

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11/01/2017 05:05 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 04:56:39PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
>>> On 10/26/2017 02:09 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>>> In Prague, Kees mentioned that it would be nice to have a mechanism to
>>>> catch bad __{get,put}_user uses, such as the recent CVE-2017-5123 [1,2]
>>>> issue with unsafe_put_user() in waitid().
>>>>
>>>> These patches allow an optional access_ok() check to be dropped in
>>>> arm64's __{get,put}_user() primitives. These will then BUG() if a bad
>>>> user pointer is passed (which should only happen in the absence of an
>>>> earlier access_ok() check).
>>
>>> Turning on the option fails as soon as we hit userspace. On my buildroot
>>> based environment I get the help text for ld.so (????) and then a message
>>> about attempting to kill init.
>>
>> Ouch. Thanks for the report, and sorry about this.
>>
>> The problem is that I evaluate the ptr argument twice in
>> __{get,put}_user(), and this may have side effects.
>>
>> e.g. when the ELF loader does things like:
>>
>>   __put_user((elf_addr_t)p, sp++)
>>
>> ... we increment sp twice, and write to the wrong user address, leaving
>> sp corrupt.
>>
>> I have an additional patch [1] to fix this, which is in my
>> arm64/access-ok branch [2].
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mark.
>>
>> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mark/linux.git/commit/?h=arm64/access-ok&id=ebb7ff83eb53b8810395d5cf48712a4ae6d678543
>> [2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mark/linux.git/log/?h=arm64/access-ok
>>
>
> Thanks, the updated patch works. I wrote an LKDTM test to verify
> the expected behavior (__{get,put}_user panic whereas {get,put}_user
> do not). You're welcome to add Tested-by or I can wait for v2.

Nice. :) Out of curiosity, can you check if this correctly BUG()s on a
waitid() call when the fixes are reverted?

96ca579a1ecc ("waitid(): Avoid unbalanced user_access_end() on
access_ok() error")
1c9fec470b81 ("waitid(): Add missing access_ok() checks")

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Subject: [kernel-hardening] Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] arm64: optional paranoid __{get,put}_user checks
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 15:28:29 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5j+eb+41XRorgAVURKEsixiMYgtcmpKwQzJ3Mct_yw1G6Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0f2d5f89-2939-06ec-9b59-b19f828d8968@redhat.com>

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11/01/2017 05:05 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 04:56:39PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
>>> On 10/26/2017 02:09 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>>> In Prague, Kees mentioned that it would be nice to have a mechanism to
>>>> catch bad __{get,put}_user uses, such as the recent CVE-2017-5123 [1,2]
>>>> issue with unsafe_put_user() in waitid().
>>>>
>>>> These patches allow an optional access_ok() check to be dropped in
>>>> arm64's __{get,put}_user() primitives. These will then BUG() if a bad
>>>> user pointer is passed (which should only happen in the absence of an
>>>> earlier access_ok() check).
>>
>>> Turning on the option fails as soon as we hit userspace. On my buildroot
>>> based environment I get the help text for ld.so (????) and then a message
>>> about attempting to kill init.
>>
>> Ouch. Thanks for the report, and sorry about this.
>>
>> The problem is that I evaluate the ptr argument twice in
>> __{get,put}_user(), and this may have side effects.
>>
>> e.g. when the ELF loader does things like:
>>
>>   __put_user((elf_addr_t)p, sp++)
>>
>> ... we increment sp twice, and write to the wrong user address, leaving
>> sp corrupt.
>>
>> I have an additional patch [1] to fix this, which is in my
>> arm64/access-ok branch [2].
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mark.
>>
>> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mark/linux.git/commit/?h=arm64/access-ok&id=ebb7ff83eb53b8810395d5cf48712a4ae6d678543
>> [2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mark/linux.git/log/?h=arm64/access-ok
>>
>
> Thanks, the updated patch works. I wrote an LKDTM test to verify
> the expected behavior (__{get,put}_user panic whereas {get,put}_user
> do not). You're welcome to add Tested-by or I can wait for v2.

Nice. :) Out of curiosity, can you check if this correctly BUG()s on a
waitid() call when the fixes are reverted?

96ca579a1ecc ("waitid(): Avoid unbalanced user_access_end() on
access_ok() error")
1c9fec470b81 ("waitid(): Add missing access_ok() checks")

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security

  reply	other threads:[~2017-11-01 22:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-10-26  9:09 [RFC PATCH 0/2] arm64: optional paranoid __{get,put}_user checks Mark Rutland
2017-10-26  9:09 ` [kernel-hardening] " Mark Rutland
2017-10-26  9:09 ` Mark Rutland
2017-10-26  9:09 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] arm64: write __range_ok() in C Mark Rutland
2017-10-26  9:09   ` [kernel-hardening] " Mark Rutland
2017-10-26  9:09   ` Mark Rutland
2017-11-16 15:28   ` Will Deacon
2017-11-16 15:28     ` [kernel-hardening] " Will Deacon
2017-11-16 15:28     ` Will Deacon
2017-11-20 12:22     ` Mark Rutland
2017-11-20 12:22       ` [kernel-hardening] " Mark Rutland
2017-11-20 12:22       ` Mark Rutland
2017-10-26  9:09 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] arm64: allow paranoid __{get,put}user Mark Rutland
2017-10-26  9:09   ` [kernel-hardening] " Mark Rutland
2017-10-26  9:09   ` Mark Rutland
2017-10-27 15:41 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] arm64: optional paranoid __{get,put}_user checks Will Deacon
2017-10-27 15:41   ` [kernel-hardening] " Will Deacon
2017-10-27 15:41   ` Will Deacon
2017-10-27 20:44   ` Mark Rutland
2017-10-27 20:44     ` [kernel-hardening] " Mark Rutland
2017-10-27 20:44     ` Mark Rutland
2017-10-28  8:47   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2017-10-28  8:47     ` [kernel-hardening] " Russell King - ARM Linux
2017-10-28  8:47     ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2017-10-31 23:56 ` Laura Abbott
2017-10-31 23:56   ` [kernel-hardening] " Laura Abbott
2017-10-31 23:56   ` Laura Abbott
2017-11-01 12:05   ` Mark Rutland
2017-11-01 12:05     ` [kernel-hardening] " Mark Rutland
2017-11-01 12:05     ` Mark Rutland
2017-11-01 21:13     ` Laura Abbott
2017-11-01 21:13       ` [kernel-hardening] " Laura Abbott
2017-11-01 21:13       ` Laura Abbott
2017-11-01 22:28       ` Kees Cook [this message]
2017-11-01 22:28         ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2017-11-01 22:28         ` Kees Cook
2017-11-01 23:05         ` Laura Abbott
2017-11-01 23:05           ` [kernel-hardening] " Laura Abbott
2017-11-01 23:05           ` Laura Abbott
2017-11-01 23:29           ` Kees Cook
2017-11-01 23:29             ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2017-11-01 23:29             ` Kees Cook
2017-11-02  1:25             ` Laura Abbott
2017-11-02  1:25               ` [kernel-hardening] " Laura Abbott
2017-11-02  1:25               ` Laura Abbott
2017-11-03 23:04 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] x86: Avoid multiple evaluations in __{get,put}_user_size Laura Abbott
2017-11-03 23:04   ` [kernel-hardening] " Laura Abbott
2017-11-03 23:04   ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] x86: Allow paranoid __{get,put}_user Laura Abbott
2017-11-03 23:04     ` [kernel-hardening] " Laura Abbott
2017-11-04  0:14     ` Kees Cook
2017-11-04  0:14       ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2017-11-04  0:24       ` Al Viro
2017-11-04  0:24         ` [kernel-hardening] " Al Viro
2017-11-04  0:44         ` Al Viro
2017-11-04  0:44           ` [kernel-hardening] " Al Viro
2017-11-04  1:39         ` Kees Cook
2017-11-04  1:39           ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2017-11-04  1:41           ` Kees Cook
2017-11-04  1:41             ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2017-11-04  1:58         ` Mark Rutland
2017-11-04  1:58           ` [kernel-hardening] " Mark Rutland
2017-11-06 20:38       ` Laura Abbott
2017-11-06 20:38         ` [kernel-hardening] " Laura Abbott

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAGXu5j+eb+41XRorgAVURKEsixiMYgtcmpKwQzJ3Mct_yw1G6Q@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
    --cc=labbott@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.