Re: [PATCH v2] seq_file: Unconditionally use vmalloc for buffer

From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
	Lee Duncan <lduncan@suse.com>, Chris Leech <cleech@redhat.com>,
	Adam Nichols <adam@grimm-co.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org,
	Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] seq_file: Unconditionally use vmalloc for buffer
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 16:48:29 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YFIkzX4d3Kpmnl8a@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YFIikaNixD57o3pk@kroah.com>

On Wed 17-03-21 16:38:57, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 04:20:52PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 17-03-21 15:56:44, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 03:44:16PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Wed 17-03-21 14:34:27, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 01:08:21PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > > Btw. I still have problems with the approach. seq_file is intended to
> > > > > > provide safe way to dump values to the userspace. Sacrificing
> > > > > > performance just because of some abuser seems like a wrong way to go as
> > > > > > Al pointed out earlier. Can we simply stop the abuse and disallow to
> > > > > > manipulate the buffer directly? I do realize this might be more tricky
> > > > > > for reasons mentioned in other emails but this is definitely worth
> > > > > > doing.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We have to provide a buffer to "write into" somehow, so what is the best
> > > > > way to stop "abuse" like this?
> > > > 
> > > > What is wrong about using seq_* interface directly?
> > > 
> > > Right now every show() callback of sysfs would have to be changed :(
> > 
> > Is this really the case? Would it be too ugly to have an intermediate
> > buffer and then seq_puts it into the seq file inside sysfs_kf_seq_show.
> 
> Oh, good idea.
> 
> > Sure one copy more than necessary but it this shouldn't be a hot path or
> > even visible on small strings. So that might be worth destroying an
> > inherently dangerous seq API (seq_get_buf).
> 
> I'm all for that, let me see if I can carve out some time tomorrow to
> try this out.
> 
> But, you don't get rid of the "ability" to have a driver write more than
> a PAGE_SIZE into the buffer passed to it.  I guess I could be paranoid
> and do some internal checks (allocate a bunch of memory and check for
> overflow by hand), if this is something to really be concerned about...

Yes this is certainly possible and it will needs some way to address. My
point was that we shouldn't cripple seq_file just because the API allows
for an abuse. Sysfs needs to find a way to handle internal PAGE_SIZE
buffer assumption in any case.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs