[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJcbSZGY3JmZankf+d6=gfg9gBWUoVUkWLDnCzaC81scPm+uBA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 07:12:56 -0700
From: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, René Nyffenegger <mail@...enyffenegger.ch>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
Pavel Tikhomirov <ptikhomirov@...tuozzo.com>, 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 v7 1/4] syscalls: Restore address limit after a syscall
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> * Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com> wrote:
>> > This patch ensures a syscall does not return to user-mode with a kernel
>> > address limit. If that happened, a process can corrupt kernel-mode
>> > memory and elevate privileges.
>> >
>> > For example, it would mitigation this bug:
>> >
>> > - https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=990
>> >
>> > The CONFIG_ARCH_NO_SYSCALL_VERIFY_PRE_USERMODE_STATE option is also
>> > added so each architecture can optimize this change.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>
>> > Tested-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>>
>> Ingo, I think this series is ready. Can you pull it? (And if not, what
>> should next steps be?)
>
> I have some feedback for other patches in this series, plus for this one as well:
>
>> > +/*
>> > + * Called before coming back to user-mode. Returning to user-mode with an
>> > + * address limit different than USER_DS can allow to overwrite kernel memory.
>> > + */
>> > +static inline void verify_pre_usermode_state(void) {
>> > + BUG_ON(!segment_eq(get_fs(), USER_DS));
>> > +}
>
> That's not standard kernel coding style.
>
> Also, patch titles should start with a verb - 75% of the series doesn't.
Will fix both.
>
>> > +#ifndef CONFIG_ARCH_NO_SYSCALL_VERIFY_PRE_USERMODE_STATE
>> > +#define __CHECK_USER_CALLER() \
>> > + bool user_caller = segment_eq(get_fs(), USER_DS)
>> > +#define __VERIFY_PRE_USERMODE_STATE() \
>> > + if (user_caller) verify_pre_usermode_state()
>> > +#else
>> > +#define __CHECK_USER_CALLER()
>> > +#define __VERIFY_PRE_USERMODE_STATE()
>> > +asmlinkage void address_limit_check_failed(void);
>> > +#endif
>
>> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_NO_SYSCALL_VERIFY_PRE_USERMODE_STATE
>
> That Kconfig name is way too long.
>
> Plus please don't put logical operations into Kconfig names.
>
>> > +/*
>> > + * This function is called when an architecture specific implementation detected
>> > + * an invalid address limit. The generic user-mode state checker will finish on
>> > + * the appropriate BUG_ON.
>> > + */
>> > +asmlinkage void address_limit_check_failed(void)
>> > +{
>> > + verify_pre_usermode_state();
>> > + panic("address_limit_check_failed called with a valid user-mode state");
>> > +}
>> > +#endif
>
> Awful naming all around:
>
> verify_pre_usermode_state()
> address_limit_check_failed()
>
> Both names start with very common names that makes one read these again and again.
> (And yes, there's lots of bad names in the kernel, but we should not follow bad
> examples.)
>
> Best practice for such functionality is to use a common prefix that is both easy
> to recognize and easy to skip. For example we could use 'addr_limit_check' as the
> prefix:
>
> addr_limit_check_failed()
> addr_limit_check_syscall()
>
> No need to over-specify it that it's a "pre" check - it's obvious from existing
> implementation and should be documented in the function itself for new
> implementations.
>
> Harmonize the Kconfig namespace to the common prefix as well, i.e. use something
> like:
>
> CONFIG_ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK
>
> No need to add 'ARCH' I think - an architecture that enables this should get it
> unconditionally.
>
> etc.
>
> It's all cobbled together I'm afraid and will need more iterations.
Make sense. Thanks for the feedback.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
--
Thomas
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.
