On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 9 July 2016 at 04:22, Laura Abbott wrote: > > On 07/06/2016 03:25 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> This is a start of the mainline port of PAX_USERCOPY[1]. After I started > >> writing tests (now in lkdtm in -next) for Casey's earlier port[2], I > >> kept tweaking things further and further until I ended up with a whole > >> new patch series. To that end, I took Rik's feedback and made a number > >> of other changes and clean-ups as well. > >> > >> Based on my understanding, PAX_USERCOPY was designed to catch a few > >> classes of flaws around the use of copy_to_user()/copy_from_user(). > These > >> changes don't touch get_user() and put_user(), since these operate on > >> constant sized lengths, and tend to be much less vulnerable. There > >> are effectively three distinct protections in the whole series, > >> each of which I've given a separate CONFIG, though this patch set is > >> only the first of the three intended protections. (Generally speaking, > >> PAX_USERCOPY covers what I'm calling CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY (this) and > >> CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY_WHITELIST (future), and PAX_USERCOPY_SLABS > covers > >> CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY_SPLIT_KMALLOC (future).) > >> > >> This series, which adds CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY, checks that objects > >> being copied to/from userspace meet certain criteria: > >> - if address is a heap object, the size must not exceed the object's > >> allocated size. (This will catch all kinds of heap overflow flaws.) > >> - if address range is in the current process stack, it must be within > the > >> current stack frame (if such checking is possible) or at least > entirely > >> within the current process's stack. (This could catch large lengths > that > >> would have extended beyond the current process stack, or overflows if > >> their length extends back into the original stack.) > >> - if the address range is part of kernel data, rodata, or bss, allow it. > >> - if address range is page-allocated, that it doesn't span multiple > >> allocations. > >> - if address is within the kernel text, reject it. > >> - everything else is accepted > >> > >> The patches in the series are: > >> - The core copy_to/from_user() checks, without the slab object checks: > >> 1- mm: Hardened usercopy > >> - Per-arch enablement of the protection: > >> 2- x86/uaccess: Enable hardened usercopy > >> 3- ARM: uaccess: Enable hardened usercopy > >> 4- arm64/uaccess: Enable hardened usercopy > >> 5- ia64/uaccess: Enable hardened usercopy > >> 6- powerpc/uaccess: Enable hardened usercopy > >> 7- sparc/uaccess: Enable hardened usercopy > >> - The heap allocator implementation of object size checking: > >> 8- mm: SLAB hardened usercopy support > >> 9- mm: SLUB hardened usercopy support > >> > >> Some notes: > >> > >> - This is expected to apply on top of -next which contains fixes for the > >> position of _etext on both arm and arm64. > >> > >> - I couldn't detect a measurable performance change with these features > >> enabled. Kernel build times were unchanged, hackbench was unchanged, > >> etc. I think we could flip this to "on by default" at some point. > >> > >> - The SLOB support extracted from grsecurity seems entirely broken. I > >> have no idea what's going on there, I spent my time testing SLAB and > >> SLUB. Having someone else look at SLOB would be nice, but this series > >> doesn't depend on it. > >> > >> Additional features that would be nice, but aren't blocking this series: > >> > >> - Needs more architecture support for stack frame checking (only x86 > now). > >> > >> > > > > Even with the SLUB fixup I'm still seeing this blow up on my arm64 > system. > > This is a > > Fedora rawhide kernel + the patches > > > > [ 0.666700] usercopy: kernel memory exposure attempt detected from > > fffffc0008b4dd58 () (8 bytes) > > [ 0.666720] CPU: 2 PID: 79 Comm: modprobe Tainted: G W > > 4.7.0-0.rc6.git1.1.hardenedusercopy.fc25.aarch64 #1 > > [ 0.666733] Hardware name: AppliedMicro Mustang/Mustang, BIOS 1.1.0 Nov > 24 > > 2015 > > [ 0.666744] Call trace: > > [ 0.666756] [] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1e8 > > [ 0.666765] [] show_stack+0x24/0x30 > > [ 0.666775] [] dump_stack+0xa4/0xe0 > > [ 0.666785] [] __check_object_size+0x6c/0x230 > > [ 0.666795] [] create_elf_tables+0x74/0x420 > > [ 0.666805] [] load_elf_binary+0x828/0xb70 > > [ 0.666814] [] search_binary_handler+0xb4/0x240 > > [ 0.666823] [] do_execveat_common+0x63c/0x950 > > [ 0.666832] [] do_execve+0x3c/0x50 > > [ 0.666841] [] > call_usermodehelper_exec_async+0xe8/0x148 > > [ 0.666850] [] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x50 > > > > This happens on every call to execve. This seems to be the first > > copy_to_user in > > create_elf_tables. I didn't get a chance to debug and I'm going out of > town > > all of next week so all I have is the report unfortunately. config > attached. > > > > This is a known issue, and a fix is already queued for v4.8 in the arm64 > tree: > > 9fdc14c55c arm64: mm: fix location of _etext [0] > > which moves _etext up in the linker script so that it does not cover > .rodata > > ARM was suffering from the same problem, and Kees proposed a fix for > it. I don't know what the status of that patch is, though. > > Note that on arm64, we have > > #define ELF_PLATFORM ("aarch64") > > which explains why k_platform points into .rodata in this case. On > ARM, it points to a writable string (as the code quoted by Rik shows), > so there it will likely explode elsewhere without the linker script > fix. > > [0] > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git/commit/?h=for-next/core&id=9fdc14c55c > > -- > Ard. > Ugh, I completely missed that note about the patch on arm64. Sorry for the noise. Thanks, Laura