Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 22:41:44 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Pavel Tikhomirov <ptikhomirov@...tuozzo.com>,
	linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
	René Nyffenegger <mail@...enyffenegger.ch>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>,
	James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
	"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>,
	"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v9 1/4] syscalls: Verify address
 limit before returning to user-mode

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 02:17:19PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:

> Two things are at risk from stack exhaustion: thread_info (mainly
> addr_limit) when on the stack (fixed by THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK), and

Really?  Let's take a look at arm, for example:

struct thread_info {
        unsigned long           flags;          /* low level flags */
        int                     preempt_count;  /* 0 => preemptable, <0 => bug */
        mm_segment_t            addr_limit;     /* address limit */
        struct task_struct      *task;          /* main task structure */

and current() is defined as current_thread_info()->task.

Seriously, look at these beasts.  Overwriting ->addr_limit is nowhere near
the top threat.  If attacker can overwrite thread_info, you have lost.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.