[PATCH] mm: add __GFP_NOWARN to memdup_user_nul()

[PATCH] mm: add __GFP_NOWARN to memdup_user_nul()

[Tetsuo Handa]

syzbot is reporting that memdup_user_nul() which receives user-controlled
size (which can be up to (INT_MAX & PAGE_MASK)) via vfs_write() will hit
order >= MAX_ORDER path [1].

Let's add __GFP_NOWARN to memdup_user_nul() as with commit 6c8fcc096be9d02f
("mm: don't let userspace spam allocations warnings").

[1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=8bf7efb3db19101b4008dc9198522ef977d098a6

Reported-by: syzbot <syzbot+a71a442385a0b2815497@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
---
 mm/util.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/mm/util.c b/mm/util.c
index 8c9b7d1e7c49..d3c9637f46bf 100644
--- a/mm/util.c
+++ b/mm/util.c
@@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ void *memdup_user_nul(const void __user *src, size_t len)
 	 * cause pagefault, which makes it pointless to use GFP_NOFS
 	 * or GFP_ATOMIC.
 	 */
-	p = kmalloc_track_caller(len + 1, GFP_KERNEL);
+	p = kmalloc_track_caller(len + 1, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOWARN);
 	if (!p)
 		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
 
-- 
2.18.4

[PATCH v2] mm: memdup_user*() should use same gfp flags

[Tetsuo Handa]

syzbot is reporting that memdup_user_nul() which receives user-controlled
size (which can be up to (INT_MAX & PAGE_MASK)) via vfs_write() will hit
order >= MAX_ORDER path [1].

Let's add __GFP_NOWARN to memdup_user_nul() as with commit 6c8fcc096be9d02f
("mm: don't let userspace spam allocations warnings"). Also use GFP_USER as
with commit 6c2c97a24f096e32 ("memdup_user(): switch to GFP_USER").

[1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=8bf7efb3db19101b4008dc9198522ef977d098a6

Reported-by: syzbot <syzbot+a71a442385a0b2815497@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
---
 mm/util.c | 7 +------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/util.c b/mm/util.c
index 8c9b7d1e7c49..265b40a86856 100644
--- a/mm/util.c
+++ b/mm/util.c
@@ -252,12 +252,7 @@ void *memdup_user_nul(const void __user *src, size_t len)
 {
 	char *p;
 
-	/*
-	 * Always use GFP_KERNEL, since copy_from_user() can sleep and
-	 * cause pagefault, which makes it pointless to use GFP_NOFS
-	 * or GFP_ATOMIC.
-	 */
-	p = kmalloc_track_caller(len + 1, GFP_KERNEL);
+	p = kmalloc_track_caller(len + 1, GFP_USER | __GFP_NOWARN);
 	if (!p)
 		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
 
-- 
2.18.4

Re: [PATCH v2] mm: memdup_user*() should use same gfp flags

[Andrew Morton]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 19:34:36 +0900 Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> wrote:

> syzbot is reporting that memdup_user_nul() which receives user-controlled
> size (which can be up to (INT_MAX & PAGE_MASK)) via vfs_write() will hit
> order >= MAX_ORDER path [1].
> 
> Let's add __GFP_NOWARN to memdup_user_nul() as with commit 6c8fcc096be9d02f
> ("mm: don't let userspace spam allocations warnings"). Also use GFP_USER as
> with commit 6c2c97a24f096e32 ("memdup_user(): switch to GFP_USER").

That commit failed to explain why a switch to GFP_USER was performed,
so that commit isn't a good substitute for an explanation of this
change.

So...  please fully describe the reason for this change right here in
this patch's changelog.

Re: [PATCH v2] mm: memdup_user*() should use same gfp flags

[Tetsuo Handa]

On 2021/01/22 10:35, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 19:34:36 +0900 Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> wrote:
> 
>> syzbot is reporting that memdup_user_nul() which receives user-controlled
>> size (which can be up to (INT_MAX & PAGE_MASK)) via vfs_write() will hit
>> order >= MAX_ORDER path [1].
>>
>> Let's add __GFP_NOWARN to memdup_user_nul() as with commit 6c8fcc096be9d02f
>> ("mm: don't let userspace spam allocations warnings"). Also use GFP_USER as
>> with commit 6c2c97a24f096e32 ("memdup_user(): switch to GFP_USER").
> 
> That commit failed to explain why a switch to GFP_USER was performed,
> so that commit isn't a good substitute for an explanation of this
> change.

For example, commit 2f77d107050abc14 ("Fix incorrect user space access locking
in mincore()") silently converted GFP_KERNEL to GFP_USER.

  #define GFP_KERNEL	(__GFP_RECLAIM | __GFP_IO | __GFP_FS)
  #define GFP_USER	(__GFP_RECLAIM | __GFP_IO | __GFP_FS | __GFP_HARDWALL)

 * %GFP_KERNEL is typical for kernel-internal allocations. The caller requires
 * %ZONE_NORMAL or a lower zone for direct access but can direct reclaim.

 * %GFP_USER is for userspace allocations that also need to be directly
 * accessibly by the kernel or hardware. It is typically used by hardware
 * for buffers that are mapped to userspace (e.g. graphics) that hardware
 * still must DMA to. cpuset limits are enforced for these allocations.

 * %__GFP_HARDWALL enforces the cpuset memory allocation policy.

> 
> So...  please fully describe the reason for this change right here in
> this patch's changelog.

I guess that GFP_USER is chosen by cautious developers when memory is
allocated by userspace request. Is there a guideline for when to use GFP_USER ?

Re: [PATCH v2] mm: memdup_user*() should use same gfp flags

[Michal Hocko]

On Fri 22-01-21 19:47:42, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2021/01/22 10:35, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 19:34:36 +0900 Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> wrote:
> > 
> >> syzbot is reporting that memdup_user_nul() which receives user-controlled
> >> size (which can be up to (INT_MAX & PAGE_MASK)) via vfs_write() will hit
> >> order >= MAX_ORDER path [1].

That is nasty!

> >> Let's add __GFP_NOWARN to memdup_user_nul() as with commit 6c8fcc096be9d02f
> >> ("mm: don't let userspace spam allocations warnings"). Also use GFP_USER as
> >> with commit 6c2c97a24f096e32 ("memdup_user(): switch to GFP_USER").

No, this is papering over a more troubling underlying problem. Userspace
shouldn't be able to trigger an aribitrary higher order allocations.
Those users with a large size to copy should be really using kvmalloc
based (e.g vmemdup_user).

> > That commit failed to explain why a switch to GFP_USER was performed,
> > so that commit isn't a good substitute for an explanation of this
> > change.
> 
> For example, commit 2f77d107050abc14 ("Fix incorrect user space access locking
> in mincore()") silently converted GFP_KERNEL to GFP_USER.
> 
>   #define GFP_KERNEL	(__GFP_RECLAIM | __GFP_IO | __GFP_FS)
>   #define GFP_USER	(__GFP_RECLAIM | __GFP_IO | __GFP_FS | __GFP_HARDWALL)
> 
>  * %GFP_KERNEL is typical for kernel-internal allocations. The caller requires
>  * %ZONE_NORMAL or a lower zone for direct access but can direct reclaim.
> 
>  * %GFP_USER is for userspace allocations that also need to be directly
>  * accessibly by the kernel or hardware. It is typically used by hardware
>  * for buffers that are mapped to userspace (e.g. graphics) that hardware
>  * still must DMA to. cpuset limits are enforced for these allocations.
> 
>  * %__GFP_HARDWALL enforces the cpuset memory allocation policy.
> 
> > 
> > So...  please fully describe the reason for this change right here in
> > this patch's changelog.
> 
> I guess that GFP_USER is chosen by cautious developers when memory is
> allocated by userspace request. Is there a guideline for when to use GFP_USER ?

I do not think we have anything better than the above. GFP_USER is
indeed used for userspace controlable allocations. So they can be a
subject to a more strict cpu policy. memdup_user_nul looks like a good
fit for GFP_USER to me. memdup_user and other variant already does this.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Re: [PATCH v2] mm: memdup_user*() should use same gfp flags

[Tetsuo Handa]

On 2021/01/25 22:32, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 22-01-21 19:47:42, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> On 2021/01/22 10:35, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 19:34:36 +0900 Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> wrote:
>>>
>>>> syzbot is reporting that memdup_user_nul() which receives user-controlled
>>>> size (which can be up to (INT_MAX & PAGE_MASK)) via vfs_write() will hit
>>>> order >= MAX_ORDER path [1].
> 
> That is nasty!

That's because -EFAULT will not be detected before memory allocation succeeds.
Fuzzer is passing huge size without corresponding valid buffer.

  syscall(__NR_write, r[0], 0x200000c0ul, 0x200000cbul);

> 
>>>> Let's add __GFP_NOWARN to memdup_user_nul() as with commit 6c8fcc096be9d02f
>>>> ("mm: don't let userspace spam allocations warnings"). Also use GFP_USER as
>>>> with commit 6c2c97a24f096e32 ("memdup_user(): switch to GFP_USER").
> 
> No, this is papering over a more troubling underlying problem. Userspace
> shouldn't be able to trigger an aribitrary higher order allocations.

That requires inserting max size checking before calling memdup_user_nul().
Oh, scattering around such checking is not nice. Add max length argument
into memdup_user_nul() like strndup_user() ?

> Those users with a large size to copy should be really using kvmalloc
> based (e.g vmemdup_user).

No. The caller in this case (writing an entry to smackfs) is not expecting
such large allocations. Sane allocation size would be always less than PAGE_SIZE.

> 
>>> That commit failed to explain why a switch to GFP_USER was performed,
>>> so that commit isn't a good substitute for an explanation of this
>>> change.
>>
>> For example, commit 2f77d107050abc14 ("Fix incorrect user space access locking
>> in mincore()") silently converted GFP_KERNEL to GFP_USER.
>>
>>   #define GFP_KERNEL	(__GFP_RECLAIM | __GFP_IO | __GFP_FS)
>>   #define GFP_USER	(__GFP_RECLAIM | __GFP_IO | __GFP_FS | __GFP_HARDWALL)
>>
>>  * %GFP_KERNEL is typical for kernel-internal allocations. The caller requires
>>  * %ZONE_NORMAL or a lower zone for direct access but can direct reclaim.
>>
>>  * %GFP_USER is for userspace allocations that also need to be directly
>>  * accessibly by the kernel or hardware. It is typically used by hardware
>>  * for buffers that are mapped to userspace (e.g. graphics) that hardware
>>  * still must DMA to. cpuset limits are enforced for these allocations.
>>
>>  * %__GFP_HARDWALL enforces the cpuset memory allocation policy.
>>
>>>
>>> So...  please fully describe the reason for this change right here in
>>> this patch's changelog.
>>
>> I guess that GFP_USER is chosen by cautious developers when memory is
>> allocated by userspace request. Is there a guideline for when to use GFP_USER ?
> 
> I do not think we have anything better than the above. GFP_USER is
> indeed used for userspace controlable allocations. So they can be a
> subject to a more strict cpu policy. memdup_user_nul looks like a good
> fit for GFP_USER to me. memdup_user and other variant already does this.
> 

Hmm, Sabyrzhan already proposed a patch that adds size check to the caller, but it seems
that that patch missed smk_write_ambient()/smk_write_onlycap()/smk_write_unconfined() etc.
Oh, bug-prone approach. Why not handle at memdup_user_nul() side?

Re: [PATCH v2] mm: memdup_user*() should use same gfp flags

[Michal Hocko]

On Mon 25-01-21 23:20:41, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2021/01/25 22:32, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 22-01-21 19:47:42, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >> On 2021/01/22 10:35, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 19:34:36 +0900 Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> syzbot is reporting that memdup_user_nul() which receives user-controlled
> >>>> size (which can be up to (INT_MAX & PAGE_MASK)) via vfs_write() will hit
> >>>> order >= MAX_ORDER path [1].
> > 
> > That is nasty!
> 
> That's because -EFAULT will not be detected before memory allocation succeeds.
> Fuzzer is passing huge size without corresponding valid buffer.
> 
>   syscall(__NR_write, r[0], 0x200000c0ul, 0x200000cbul);
> 
> > 
> >>>> Let's add __GFP_NOWARN to memdup_user_nul() as with commit 6c8fcc096be9d02f
> >>>> ("mm: don't let userspace spam allocations warnings"). Also use GFP_USER as
> >>>> with commit 6c2c97a24f096e32 ("memdup_user(): switch to GFP_USER").
> > 
> > No, this is papering over a more troubling underlying problem. Userspace
> > shouldn't be able to trigger an aribitrary higher order allocations.
> 
> That requires inserting max size checking before calling memdup_user_nul().
> Oh, scattering around such checking is not nice. Add max length argument
> into memdup_user_nul() like strndup_user() ?

Or simply fallback to the vmalloc based memdump* if the size is larger
than the PAGE_SIZE. It seems that the existing API is much more complex
than necessary.
[...]
> > I do not think we have anything better than the above. GFP_USER is
> > indeed used for userspace controlable allocations. So they can be a
> > subject to a more strict cpu policy. memdup_user_nul looks like a good
> > fit for GFP_USER to me. memdup_user and other variant already does this.
> > 
> 
> Hmm, Sabyrzhan already proposed a patch that adds size check to the caller, but it seems
> that that patch missed smk_write_ambient()/smk_write_onlycap()/smk_write_unconfined() etc.
> Oh, bug-prone approach. Why not handle at memdup_user_nul() side?
 
I am sorry I do not follow.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Re: [PATCH v2] mm: memdup_user*() should use same gfp flags

[Sabyrzhan Tasbolatov]

> > Hmm, Sabyrzhan already proposed a patch that adds size check to the caller, but it seems
> > that that patch missed smk_write_ambient()/smk_write_onlycap()/smk_write_unconfined() etc.
> > Oh, bug-prone approach. Why not handle at memdup_user_nul() side?

> I am sorry I do not follow.

Tetsuo refers to this smackfs patch [1], where I've added a length check before
memdup_user_nul().

There are currently 39 references to this function, where length > PAGE_SIZE - 1
or similar sanity check already presents.

So I can't comment on handling it without __GFP_NOWARN at memdup_user_nul() side.

> > Hmm, Sabyrzhan already proposed a patch that adds size check to the caller, but it seems
> > that that patch missed smk_write_ambient()/smk_write_onlycap()/smk_write_unconfined() etc.

Thanks, I will prepare PATCH v2 with a length check for smk_write_* smackfs
functions in [1] patch set.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/20210124143627.582115-1-snovitoll@gmail.com/

[PATCH v3] mm: memdup_user*() should use same gfp flags

[Tetsuo Handa]

syzbot is reporting that memdup_user_nul() which receives user-controlled
size (which can be up to (INT_MAX & PAGE_MASK)) via vfs_write() will hit
order >= MAX_ORDER path [1].

Making costly allocations (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) naturally fail
should be better than trying to enforce PAGE_SIZE upper limit, for some of
callers accept space-delimited list arguments.

Therefore, let's add __GFP_NOWARN to memdup_user_nul() as with
commit 6c8fcc096be9d02f ("mm: don't let userspace spam allocations
warnings"). Also use GFP_USER as with other userspace-controllable
allocations like memdup_user().

[1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=8bf7efb3db19101b4008dc9198522ef977d098a6

Reported-by: syzbot <syzbot+a71a442385a0b2815497@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
---
 mm/util.c | 7 +------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/util.c b/mm/util.c
index 8c9b7d1e7c49..265b40a86856 100644
--- a/mm/util.c
+++ b/mm/util.c
@@ -252,12 +252,7 @@ void *memdup_user_nul(const void __user *src, size_t len)
 {
 	char *p;
 
-	/*
-	 * Always use GFP_KERNEL, since copy_from_user() can sleep and
-	 * cause pagefault, which makes it pointless to use GFP_NOFS
-	 * or GFP_ATOMIC.
-	 */
-	p = kmalloc_track_caller(len + 1, GFP_KERNEL);
+	p = kmalloc_track_caller(len + 1, GFP_USER | __GFP_NOWARN);
 	if (!p)
 		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
 
-- 
2.18.4

Re: [PATCH v3] mm: memdup_user*() should use same gfp flags

[Michal Hocko]

On Wed 27-01-21 19:55:38, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> syzbot is reporting that memdup_user_nul() which receives user-controlled
> size (which can be up to (INT_MAX & PAGE_MASK)) via vfs_write() will hit
> order >= MAX_ORDER path [1].
> 
> Making costly allocations (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) naturally fail
> should be better than trying to enforce PAGE_SIZE upper limit, for some of
> callers accept space-delimited list arguments.
> 
> Therefore, let's add __GFP_NOWARN to memdup_user_nul() as with
> commit 6c8fcc096be9d02f ("mm: don't let userspace spam allocations
> warnings"). Also use GFP_USER as with other userspace-controllable
> allocations like memdup_user().

I absolutely detest hiding this behind __GFP_NOWARN. There should be no
reason to even try hard for memdup_user_nul. Can you explain why this
cannot use kvmalloc instead?

> [1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=8bf7efb3db19101b4008dc9198522ef977d098a6
> 
> Reported-by: syzbot <syzbot+a71a442385a0b2815497@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> ---
>  mm/util.c | 7 +------
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/util.c b/mm/util.c
> index 8c9b7d1e7c49..265b40a86856 100644
> --- a/mm/util.c
> +++ b/mm/util.c
> @@ -252,12 +252,7 @@ void *memdup_user_nul(const void __user *src, size_t len)
>  {
>  	char *p;
>  
> -	/*
> -	 * Always use GFP_KERNEL, since copy_from_user() can sleep and
> -	 * cause pagefault, which makes it pointless to use GFP_NOFS
> -	 * or GFP_ATOMIC.
> -	 */
> -	p = kmalloc_track_caller(len + 1, GFP_KERNEL);
> +	p = kmalloc_track_caller(len + 1, GFP_USER | __GFP_NOWARN);
>  	if (!p)
>  		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>  
> -- 
> 2.18.4
> 

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Re: [PATCH v3] mm: memdup_user*() should use same gfp flags

[Michal Hocko]

On Wed 27-01-21 12:59:28, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 27-01-21 19:55:38, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > syzbot is reporting that memdup_user_nul() which receives user-controlled
> > size (which can be up to (INT_MAX & PAGE_MASK)) via vfs_write() will hit
> > order >= MAX_ORDER path [1].
> > 
> > Making costly allocations (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) naturally fail
> > should be better than trying to enforce PAGE_SIZE upper limit, for some of
> > callers accept space-delimited list arguments.
> > 
> > Therefore, let's add __GFP_NOWARN to memdup_user_nul() as with
> > commit 6c8fcc096be9d02f ("mm: don't let userspace spam allocations
> > warnings"). Also use GFP_USER as with other userspace-controllable
> > allocations like memdup_user().
> 
> I absolutely detest hiding this behind __GFP_NOWARN. There should be no
> reason to even try hard for memdup_user_nul. Can you explain why this

this should have been "try hard to get a physicaly contiguous memory for memdup_user_nul"

> cannot use kvmalloc instead?

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Re: [PATCH v3] mm: memdup_user*() should use same gfp flags

[Andrew Morton]

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 23:03:33 +0900 Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:

> On 2021/01/27 21:17, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 27-01-21 12:59:28, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> On Wed 27-01-21 19:55:38, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >>> syzbot is reporting that memdup_user_nul() which receives user-controlled
> >>> size (which can be up to (INT_MAX & PAGE_MASK)) via vfs_write() will hit
> >>> order >= MAX_ORDER path [1].
> >>>
> >>> Making costly allocations (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) naturally fail
> >>> should be better than trying to enforce PAGE_SIZE upper limit, for some of
> >>> callers accept space-delimited list arguments.
> >>>
> >>> Therefore, let's add __GFP_NOWARN to memdup_user_nul() as with
> >>> commit 6c8fcc096be9d02f ("mm: don't let userspace spam allocations
> >>> warnings"). Also use GFP_USER as with other userspace-controllable
> >>> allocations like memdup_user().
> >>
> >> I absolutely detest hiding this behind __GFP_NOWARN. There should be no
> >> reason to even try hard for memdup_user_nul. Can you explain why this
> > 
> > this should have been "try hard to get a physicaly contiguous memory for memdup_user_nul"
> > 
> >> cannot use kvmalloc instead?
> > 
> 
> There is no point with allowing userspace to allocate 2GB of physically non-contiguous
> memory using kvmalloc(). Size is controlled by userspace, and memdup_user_nul() is used
> for allocating temporary memory which will be released before returning to userspace.
> 
> Sane userspace processes should allocate only one or a few pages using memdup_user_nul().
> Just making insane user processes (like fuzzer) fail memory allocation requests is a
> reasonable decision.

(cc Casey)

I'd say that the immediate problem is in smk_write_syslog().  Obviously
it was implemented expecting small writes, but the fuzzer is passing it a
huge write and things fall apart.

Re: [PATCH v3] mm: memdup_user*() should use same gfp flags

[Casey Schaufler]

On 1/27/2021 3:19 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 23:03:33 +0900 Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
>
>> On 2021/01/27 21:17, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Wed 27-01-21 12:59:28, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>> On Wed 27-01-21 19:55:38, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>>>> syzbot is reporting that memdup_user_nul() which receives user-controlled
>>>>> size (which can be up to (INT_MAX & PAGE_MASK)) via vfs_write() will hit
>>>>> order >= MAX_ORDER path [1].
>>>>>
>>>>> Making costly allocations (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) naturally fail
>>>>> should be better than trying to enforce PAGE_SIZE upper limit, for some of
>>>>> callers accept space-delimited list arguments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore, let's add __GFP_NOWARN to memdup_user_nul() as with
>>>>> commit 6c8fcc096be9d02f ("mm: don't let userspace spam allocations
>>>>> warnings"). Also use GFP_USER as with other userspace-controllable
>>>>> allocations like memdup_user().
>>>> I absolutely detest hiding this behind __GFP_NOWARN. There should be no
>>>> reason to even try hard for memdup_user_nul. Can you explain why this
>>> this should have been "try hard to get a physicaly contiguous memory for memdup_user_nul"
>>>
>>>> cannot use kvmalloc instead?
>> There is no point with allowing userspace to allocate 2GB of physically non-contiguous
>> memory using kvmalloc(). Size is controlled by userspace, and memdup_user_nul() is used
>> for allocating temporary memory which will be released before returning to userspace.
>>
>> Sane userspace processes should allocate only one or a few pages using memdup_user_nul().
>> Just making insane user processes (like fuzzer) fail memory allocation requests is a
>> reasonable decision.
> (cc Casey)
>
> I'd say that the immediate problem is in smk_write_syslog().  Obviously
> it was implemented expecting small writes, but the fuzzer is passing it a
> huge write and things fall apart.

Yes, Smack should be checking that. Patch is in the works.
I hates fuzzers.

Re: [PATCH v3] mm: memdup_user*() should use same gfp flags

[Tetsuo Handa]

On 2021/01/28 8:27, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>> There is no point with allowing userspace to allocate 2GB of physically non-contiguous
>>> memory using kvmalloc(). Size is controlled by userspace, and memdup_user_nul() is used
>>> for allocating temporary memory which will be released before returning to userspace.
>>>
>>> Sane userspace processes should allocate only one or a few pages using memdup_user_nul().
>>> Just making insane user processes (like fuzzer) fail memory allocation requests is a
>>> reasonable decision.
>> (cc Casey)
>>
>> I'd say that the immediate problem is in smk_write_syslog().  Obviously
>> it was implemented expecting small writes, but the fuzzer is passing it a
>> huge write and things fall apart.
> 
> Yes, Smack should be checking that. Patch is in the works.

Caller of memdup_user_nul() is responsible for making sure that size != -1 in order to
avoid integer overflow overlooked by kmalloc(0) != NULL because memdup_user_nul() allocates
size + 1 bytes. And this is automatically made sure for smackfs because vfs_write() makes
sure that size <= (INT_MAX & PAGE_MASK) bytes.

But some legitimate userspace might be already doing "write(fd, buffer, 20000);" for
smk_write_onlycap()/smk_write_relabel_self(). How can you guarantee that introducing
upper limit on the caller side does not break existing userspace tools?

If some caller wants size > 32767 for memdup_user_nul(), it is just a matter of introducing
vmemdup_user_nul(). memdup_user() and memdup_user_nul() had better behave similarly.
There is no reason to use different gfp flags between memdup_user() and memdup_user_nul().

> I hates fuzzers.

A surprising comment from security person. Smack is free to opt out of syzbot testing. :-)

Re: [PATCH v3] mm: memdup_user*() should use same gfp flags

[Michal Hocko]

On Wed 27-01-21 15:19:40, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 23:03:33 +0900 Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
> 
> > On 2021/01/27 21:17, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 27-01-21 12:59:28, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >> On Wed 27-01-21 19:55:38, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > >>> syzbot is reporting that memdup_user_nul() which receives user-controlled
> > >>> size (which can be up to (INT_MAX & PAGE_MASK)) via vfs_write() will hit
> > >>> order >= MAX_ORDER path [1].
> > >>>
> > >>> Making costly allocations (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) naturally fail
> > >>> should be better than trying to enforce PAGE_SIZE upper limit, for some of
> > >>> callers accept space-delimited list arguments.
> > >>>
> > >>> Therefore, let's add __GFP_NOWARN to memdup_user_nul() as with
> > >>> commit 6c8fcc096be9d02f ("mm: don't let userspace spam allocations
> > >>> warnings"). Also use GFP_USER as with other userspace-controllable
> > >>> allocations like memdup_user().
> > >>
> > >> I absolutely detest hiding this behind __GFP_NOWARN. There should be no
> > >> reason to even try hard for memdup_user_nul. Can you explain why this
> > > 
> > > this should have been "try hard to get a physicaly contiguous memory for memdup_user_nul"
> > > 
> > >> cannot use kvmalloc instead?
> > > 
> > 
> > There is no point with allowing userspace to allocate 2GB of physically non-contiguous
> > memory using kvmalloc(). Size is controlled by userspace, and memdup_user_nul() is used
> > for allocating temporary memory which will be released before returning to userspace.
> > 
> > Sane userspace processes should allocate only one or a few pages using memdup_user_nul().
> > Just making insane user processes (like fuzzer) fail memory allocation requests is a
> > reasonable decision.
> 
> (cc Casey)
> 
> I'd say that the immediate problem is in smk_write_syslog().  Obviously
> it was implemented expecting small writes, but the fuzzer is passing it a
> huge write and things fall apart.

I am not familiar with this particular caller and having a limit check
which suits that particular usage is a reasonable thing to do.

I do argue two things
- using NOWARN to work around potentially buggy callers is just sweeping
  the mess under the rug and opens
- these helper functions are to help copy user input and that doesn't
  really need physically contiguous pages. This can even become
  dangerous as a higher order depleting vector and DoS via OOM in  the
  worst case.

From that it sounds natural that the helper should be using kvmalloc.
This will not solve a due size check on the caller side but that is not
possible from a generic helper library function anyway. But it will
provide a reasonable allocation policy.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs