[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5900026E.29602.1FC65392@pageexec.freemail.hu>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 04:14:06 +0200
From: "PaX Team" <pageexec@...email.hu>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>,
David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/refcount: Implement fast refcount_t handling
On 25 Apr 2017 at 9:39, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:26 AM, PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu> wrote:
> > INT_MAX threads would be needed when the leaking path is locked so
> > that it can only be exercised once and you'll need to get normal
> > (balanced) paths preempted just after the increment. if the leaking
> > path is lockless (can be exercised in parallel without bounds) then
> > 2 threads are enough where the one triggering the signed overflow
> > would have to be preempted while the other one does INT_MAX increments
> > and trigger the UAF. this is where the other mechanisms i talked about
> > in the past become relevant: preemption or interrupts can be disabled
> > or negative refcount values can be detected and acted upon (your blind
> > copy-pasting effort passed upon this latter opportunity by not
> > specializing the 'jo' into 'js' for the refcount case).
>
> Well, it's not "blind" -- I'm trying to bring the code as-is to
> upstream for discussion/examination with as little functional
> differences as possible so it's easier to compare apples to apples.
you copied code from a version which is at least 2 major kernel revisions
behind (so much for those apples), you chose the one version which had a
bug that you didn't spot nor fix properly, you didn't realize the opportunity
that a special refcount type represents, you claimed refcount underflows
aren't exploitable but copied code that would detect signed underflow, you
didn't understand the limits and edge cases i explained above... need i go
on? doesn't leave one with great confidence in your ability to understand
and maintain this code...
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.
