From: Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: "Roberts, William C" <william.c.roberts@intel.com>,
linux-mm@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com"
<kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
"benh@kernel.crashing.org" <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Nick Kralevich <nnk@google.com>,
Jeffrey Vander Stoep <jeffv@google.com>,
alyzyn@android.com, Daniel Cashman <dcashman@android.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 1/6] random: Simplify API for random address requests
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 17:00:52 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160726170052.GI4541@io.lakedaemon.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jJo=8LYRarF8WqJg+b8Jf6ngZ_P_400HmuAk_j5-N-TcA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Kees,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 09:39:58PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 03:01:55AM +0000, Jason Cooper wrote:
> >> To date, all callers of randomize_range() have set the length to 0, and
> >> check for a zero return value. For the current callers, the only way
> >> to get zero returned is if end <= start. Since they are all adding a
> >> constant to the start address, this is unnecessary.
> >>
> >> We can remove a bunch of needless checks by simplifying the API to do
> >> just what everyone wants, return an address between [start, start +
> >> range].
> >>
> >> While we're here, s/get_random_int/get_random_long/. No current call
> >> site is adversely affected by get_random_int(), since all current range
> >> requests are < MAX_UINT. However, we should match caller expectations
merf. UINT_MAX.
> >> to avoid coming up short (ha!) in the future.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/char/random.c | 17 ++++-------------
> >> include/linux/random.h | 2 +-
> >> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/char/random.c b/drivers/char/random.c
> >> index 0158d3bff7e5..1251cb2cbab2 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/char/random.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/char/random.c
> >> @@ -1822,22 +1822,13 @@ unsigned long get_random_long(void)
> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(get_random_long);
> >>
> >> /*
> >> - * randomize_range() returns a start address such that
> >> - *
> >> - * [...... <range> .....]
> >> - * start end
> >> - *
> >> - * a <range> with size "len" starting at the return value is inside in the
> >> - * area defined by [start, end], but is otherwise randomized.
> >> + * randomize_addr() returns a page aligned address within [start, start +
> >> + * range]
> >> */
> >> unsigned long
> >> -randomize_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long end, unsigned long len)
> >> +randomize_addr(unsigned long start, unsigned long range)
> >> {
> >> - unsigned long range = end - len - start;
> >> -
> >> - if (end <= start + len)
> >> - return 0;
> >> - return PAGE_ALIGN(get_random_int() % range + start);
> >> + return PAGE_ALIGN(get_random_long() % range + start);
> >> }
> >
> > bah! old patch file. This should have been:
> >
> > if (range == 0)
> > return start;
> > else
> > return PAGE_ALIGN(get_random_long() % range + start);
>
> I think range should be limited to start + range < UINTMAX,
ULONG_MAX? I agree.
if (range == 0 || ULONG_MAX - range < start)
return start;
else
return PAGE_ALIGN(get_random_long() % range + start);
?
> and it should be very clear if the range is inclusive or exclusive.
Sorry, I was reading the original comment, '[start, end]' with square
brackets denoting inclusive.
Regardless, the math in randomize_range() was just undoing the math at
each of the call sites. This proposed change to randomize_addr()
doesn't alter the current state of affairs wrt inclusive, exclusive.
> start = 0, range = 4096. does this mean 1 page, or 2 pages possible?
ooh, good spot. What we have right now is [start, start + range), which
is matching previous behavior. But does not match the old comment,
[start, end]. It should have been [start, end).
So, you're correct, I need to clarify this in the comments.
thx,
Jason.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-26 17:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-25 18:25 [PATCH] randomize_range: use random long instead of int william.c.roberts
2016-07-25 18:54 ` Kees Cook
2016-07-26 2:18 ` Jason Cooper
2016-07-26 3:01 ` [RFC patch 1/6] random: Simplify API for random address requests Jason Cooper
2016-07-26 3:01 ` [RFC patch 2/6] x86: Use simpler " Jason Cooper
2016-07-26 3:01 ` [RFC patch 3/6] ARM: " Jason Cooper
2016-07-26 3:01 ` [RFC patch 4/6] arm64: " Jason Cooper
2016-07-26 3:01 ` [RFC patch 5/6] tile: " Jason Cooper
2016-07-26 3:02 ` [RFC patch 6/6] unicore32: " Jason Cooper
2016-07-26 3:30 ` [RFC patch 1/6] random: Simplify " Jason Cooper
2016-07-26 4:39 ` Kees Cook
2016-07-26 17:00 ` Jason Cooper [this message]
2016-07-26 17:07 ` Kees Cook
2016-07-28 19:02 ` Jason Cooper
2016-07-26 17:33 ` Roberts, William C
2016-07-26 4:44 ` Kees Cook
2016-07-26 15:55 ` Jason Cooper
2016-07-26 16:40 ` Kees Cook
2016-07-27 13:51 ` [kernel-hardening] " Yann Droneaud
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=20160726170052.GI4541@io.lakedaemon.net \
--to=jason@lakedaemon.net \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alyzyn@android.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dcashman@android.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jeffv@google.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=nnk@google.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=ralf@linux-mips.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=william.c.roberts@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).