[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120723154927.GA17439@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:49:27 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>,
WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: do not allow negative offsets on
/proc/<pid>/environ
Hi Djalal,
On 07/23, Djalal Harouni wrote:
>
> Hi Oleg,
>
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 10:00:49PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Probablt the patch makes sense, but I can't understand the changelog...
> >
> > > Allowing negative offsets on /proc/<pid>/environ can turn it to act like
> > > /proc/<pid>/mem. A negative offset will pass the
> > > fs/read_write.c:lseek_execute() and the environ_read() checks and will
> > > point to another VMA.
> >
> > which VMA?
> It depends on the offset. Please see below.
>
> > environ_read() can only read the memory from [env_start, env_end], and
> > it should check *ppos anyway to ensure it doesn't read something else.
> Yes I agree, but currently that's not the case, there are no checks on *ppos.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There is, unless I missed something, just it is buggy, no?
> So if you pass a negative offset you will be able to read from an arbitrary
> address.
>
> [...snip...]
>
> inside environ_read() there is only a one check:
>
> int this_len = mm->env_end - (mm->env_start + src);
>
> if (this_len <= 0)
> break;
>
>
> Here 'src' is 'src = *ppos' the negative offset converted to unsigned long
> and (mm->env_start + src) can overflow and point to another VMA.
>
> int this_len = mm->env_end - (mm->env_start + src)
>
> 'this_len' will be positive and we pass that check.
OK, thanks, but doesn't this mean that this check should be fixed
to avoid the overflow, no matter what *ppos is?
With or without FMODE_UNSIGNED_OFFSET change. And perhaps it is
possible to trigger the overflow even with the positive *ppos,
because:
> I also don't like the truncation of the result to 'int this_len'
Yes.
> BTW should I resend the patch with a better changelog entry ?
Up to you, but I think this makes sense ;)
> I'll also add another patch to check the offsets inside environ_read().
Yes, agreed, but please see above.
Please correct me, but afaics this patch should come 1st and fix the bug.
FMODE_UNSIGNED_OFFSET change can be considered as a cleanup after that.
What do you think?
Oleg.
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.
