kernel-hardening - Re: [PATCH v8 1/4] syscalls: Verify address limit before returning to user-mode

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170427064917.phwo6yl4v4q43fql@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 08:49:17 +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>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	René Nyffenegger <mail@...enyffenegger.ch>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	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@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/4] syscalls: Verify address limit before returning
 to user-mode


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

> +
> +/*
> + * 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 addr_limit_check_syscall(void)
> +{
> +	BUG_ON(!segment_eq(get_fs(), USER_DS));
> +}
> +
> +#ifndef CONFIG_ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK
> +#define __CHECK_USERMODE_SYSCALL() \
> +	bool user_caller = segment_eq(get_fs(), USER_DS)
> +#define __VERIFY_ADDR_LIMIT() \
> +	if (user_caller) addr_limit_check_syscall()
> +#else
> +#define __CHECK_USERMODE_SYSCALL()
> +#define __VERIFY_ADDR_LIMIT()
> +asmlinkage void addr_limit_check_failed(void) __noreturn;
> +#endif

_Please_ harmonize all the externally exposed names and symbols.

There's no reason for this mismash of names:

	CONFIG_ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK

	__CHECK_USERMODE_SYSCALL
	__VERIFY_ADDR_LIMIT

When we could just as easily name them consistently, along the existing pattern:

	CONFIG_ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK

	__SYSCALL_ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK
	__ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK

which should fit into existing nomenclature:

>  #define __SYSCALL_DEFINEx(x, name, ...)					\

But even with that fixed, the whole construct still looks pretty weird:

>  	{								\
> -		long ret = SYSC##name(__MAP(x,__SC_CAST,__VA_ARGS__));	\
> +		long ret;						\
> +		__CHECK_USERMODE_SYSCALL();				\
> +		ret = SYSC##name(__MAP(x,__SC_CAST,__VA_ARGS__));	\
> +		__ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK();					\
>  		__MAP(x,__SC_TEST,__VA_ARGS__);				\
>  		__PROTECT(x, ret,__MAP(x,__SC_ARGS,__VA_ARGS__));	\
>  		return ret;						\

I think something like this would be more natural to read:

> +		ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK_PRE();					\
> +		ret = SYSC##name(__MAP(x,__SC_CAST,__VA_ARGS__));	\
> +		ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK_POST();				\

it's a clear pre/post construct. Also note the lack of double underscores.

BTW., a further simplification would be:

#ifndef ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK_PRE
# define ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK_PRE ...
#endif

This way architectures could override this generic functionality simply by 
defining the helpers. Architectures that don't do that get the generic version. 

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.