kernel-hardening - Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] syscalls: Restore address limit after a syscall

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170426081229.6wnugrs7w3at4xry@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 10:12:29 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>
Cc: 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>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, 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 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] syscalls: Restore address limit after a syscall


* Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com> wrote:

> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_NO_SYSCALL_VERIFY_PRE_USERMODE_STATE
> >> +/*
> >> + * 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");
> >
> > It's very unconstructive to unconditionally panic the system, just because some
> > kernel code leaked the address limit! Do a warn-once printout and kill the current
> > task (i.e. don't continue execution), but don't crash everything else!
> 
> The original change did not crash the kernel for this exact reason.
> Through reviews, there was an overall agreement that the kernel should
> not continue in this state.

Ok, I guess we can try that - but the panic message is still pretty misleading:

	panic("address_limit_check_failed called with a valid user-mode state");

... so it was called with a _valid_ user-mode state, and we crash due to something 
valid? Huh?

( Also, the style rule applies to kernel messages as well: function names should 
  be referred to as "function_name()". )

Thanks,

	Ingo

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.