[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5j+hyXxpyU1R+BeL9RwPhT6HSNE0c_b7MP_V0rYSAepYFw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 11:31:35 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
René Nyffenegger <mail@...enyffenegger.ch>,
Stephen Bates <stephen.bates@...s.com>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
Milosz Tanski <milosz@...in.com>, Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] syscalls: Restore address limit after a syscall
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com> wrote:
> This patch prevents a syscall to modify the address limit of the
> caller. The address limit is kept by the syscall wrapper and restored
> just after the syscall ends.
>
> For example, it would mitigation this bug:
>
> - https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=990
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>
> ---
> Based on next-20170209
> ---
> include/linux/syscalls.h | 5 ++++-
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/syscalls.h b/include/linux/syscalls.h
> index 91a740f6b884..a1b6a62a9849 100644
> --- a/include/linux/syscalls.h
> +++ b/include/linux/syscalls.h
> @@ -198,7 +198,10 @@ extern struct trace_event_functions exit_syscall_print_funcs;
> asmlinkage long SyS##name(__MAP(x,__SC_LONG,__VA_ARGS__)); \
> asmlinkage long SyS##name(__MAP(x,__SC_LONG,__VA_ARGS__)) \
> { \
> - long ret = SYSC##name(__MAP(x,__SC_CAST,__VA_ARGS__)); \
> + long ret; \
> + mm_segment_t fs = get_fs(); \
> + ret = SYSC##name(__MAP(x,__SC_CAST,__VA_ARGS__)); \
> + set_fs(fs); \
> __MAP(x,__SC_TEST,__VA_ARGS__); \
> __PROTECT(x, ret,__MAP(x,__SC_ARGS,__VA_ARGS__)); \
> return ret; \
> --
> 2.11.0.483.g087da7b7c-goog
>
I have a memory of Andy looking at this before, and there was some
problem with how a bunch of compat code would set fs and then re-call
the syscall... but I can't quite find the conversation. Andy, do you
remember the details?
This seems like an entirely reasonable thing to enforce for syscalls,
though I'm sure there's a gotcha somewhere. :)
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
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.
