From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 17:53:10 +0100 From: Al Viro To: Jann Horn Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp, dgilbert@interlog.com, jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, kernel list , Kernel Hardening , security@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] sg, bsg: mitigate read/write abuse, block uaccess in release Message-ID: <20180615165310.GF30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20180615152335.208202-1-jannh@google.com> <20180615164009.GD30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: Al Viro List-ID: On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 06:44:51PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 6:40 PM Al Viro wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 05:23:35PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote: > > > > > I've mostly copypasted ib_safe_file_access() over as > > > scsi_safe_file_access() because I couldn't find a good common header - > > > please tell me if you know a better way. > > > The duplicate pr_err_once() calls are so that each of them fires once; > > > otherwise, this would probably have to be a macro. > > > > > > Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2") > > > Cc: > > > Signed-off-by: Jann Horn > > > --- > > > > WTF do you mean, in ->release()? That makes no sense whatsoever - > > what kind of copy_{to,from}_user() would be possible in there? > > bsg_release -> bsg_put_device -> bsg_complete_all_commands -> > blk_complete_sgv4_hdr_rq -> bsg_scsi_complete_rq -> copy_to_user. > I don't think that was intentional. > > Basically, the sense buffer is copied to a userspace address supplied > in the previous ->write() when you ->read() the reply. But when you > ->release() the file without reading the reply, they have to clean it > up, and for that, they reuse the same code they use for ->read() - so > the sense buffer is written to userspace on ->release(). Pardon me, that has only one fix - git rm. This is too broken for words - if your reading is correct, the interface is unsalvagable. I hope you *are* misreading it, but if not... how did that insanity get through review at merge time?