[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <568C80BC.4080507@labbott.name>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 18:49:32 -0800
From: Laura Abbott <laura@...bott.name>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] lkdtm: Add READ_AFTER_FREE test
On 1/5/16 4:15 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Laura Abbott <laura@...bott.name> wrote:
>>
>> In a similar manner to WRITE_AFTER_FREE, add a READ_AFTER_FREE
>> test to test free poisoning features. Sample output when
>> no poison is present:
>>
>> [ 20.222501] lkdtm: Performing direct entry READ_AFTER_FREE
>> [ 20.226163] lkdtm: Freed val: 12345678
>>
>> with poison:
>>
>> [ 24.203748] lkdtm: Performing direct entry READ_AFTER_FREE
>> [ 24.207261] general protection fault: 0000 [#1] SMP
>> [ 24.208193] Modules linked in:
>> [ 24.208193] CPU: 0 PID: 866 Comm: sh Not tainted 4.4.0-rc5-work+ #108
>>
>> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
>> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <laura@...bott.name>
>> ---
>> drivers/misc/lkdtm.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/misc/lkdtm.c b/drivers/misc/lkdtm.c
>> index 11fdadc..c641fb7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/misc/lkdtm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/misc/lkdtm.c
>> @@ -92,6 +92,7 @@ enum ctype {
>> CT_UNALIGNED_LOAD_STORE_WRITE,
>> CT_OVERWRITE_ALLOCATION,
>> CT_WRITE_AFTER_FREE,
>> + CT_READ_AFTER_FREE,
>> CT_SOFTLOCKUP,
>> CT_HARDLOCKUP,
>> CT_SPINLOCKUP,
>> @@ -129,6 +130,7 @@ static char* cp_type[] = {
>> "UNALIGNED_LOAD_STORE_WRITE",
>> "OVERWRITE_ALLOCATION",
>> "WRITE_AFTER_FREE",
>> + "READ_AFTER_FREE",
>> "SOFTLOCKUP",
>> "HARDLOCKUP",
>> "SPINLOCKUP",
>> @@ -417,6 +419,33 @@ static void lkdtm_do_action(enum ctype which)
>> memset(data, 0x78, len);
>> break;
>> }
>> + case CT_READ_AFTER_FREE: {
>> + int **base;
>> + int *val, *tmp;
>> +
>> + base = kmalloc(1024, GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!base)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + val = kmalloc(1024, GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!val)
>> + return;
>
> For both of these test failure return, I think there should be a
> pr_warn too (see CT_EXEC_USERSPACE).
>
I was going by the usual rule that messages on memory failures are
redundant because something somewhere else is going to be printing
out error messages.
>> +
>> + *val = 0x12345678;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Don't just use the first entry since that's where the
>> + * freelist goes for the slab allocator
>> + */
>> + base[1] = val;
>
> Maybe just aim at the middle, in case allocator freelist tracking ever
> grows? base[1024/sizeof(int)/2] or something?
>
Good point.
>> + kfree(base);
>> +
>> + tmp = base[1];
>> + pr_info("Freed val: %x\n", *tmp);
>
> Instead of depending on the deref to fail, maybe just use a simple
> BUG_ON to test that the value did actually change? Or, change the
> pr_info to "Failed to Oops when reading freed value: ..." just to be
> slightly more verbose about what failed?
>
I'll come up with something to be more explicit here.
Thanks,
Laura
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.
