|
Message-Id: <20170324081450.GA5891@osiris> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 09:14:50 +0100 From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com> To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> Cc: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>, Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, René Nyffenegger <mail@...enyffenegger.ch>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Pavel Tikhomirov <ptikhomirov@...tuozzo.com>, Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>, "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>, "linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] lkdtm: add bad USER_DS test On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 01:34:19PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > This adds CORRUPT_USER_DS to check that the get_fs() test on syscall return > still sees USER_DS during the new VERIFY_PRE_USERMODE_STATE checks. > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> ... > +void lkdtm_CORRUPT_USER_DS(void) > +{ > + /* > + * Test that USER_DS has been set correctly on exiting a syscall. > + * Since setting this higher than USER_DS (TASK_SIZE) would introduce > + * an exploitable condition, we lower it instead, since that should > + * not create as large a problem on an unprotected system. > + */ > + mm_segment_t lowfs; > +#ifdef MAKE_MM_SEG > + lowfs = MAKE_MM_SEG(TASK_SIZE - PAGE_SIZE); > +#else > + lowfs = TASK_SIZE - PAGE_SIZE; > +#endif > + > + pr_info("setting bad task size limit\n"); > + set_fs(lowfs); > +} This won't work on architectures where the set_fs() argument does not contain an address but an address space identifier. This is true e.g. for s390 and as far as I know also for sparc. On s390 we have complete distinct address spaces for kernel and user space that each start at address zero.
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.