|
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1707062247520.3239@nanos> Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 22:48:46 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> To: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com> cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, 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>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Pratyush Anand <panand@...hat.com>, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.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 v10 1/3] x86/syscalls: Check address limit on user-mode return On Thu, 6 Jul 2017, Thomas Garnier wrote: > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com> wrote: > > >> Ensure the address limit is a user-mode segment before returning to > > >> user-mode. Otherwise a process can corrupt kernel-mode memory and elevate > > >> privileges [1]. > > >> > > >> The set_fs function sets the TIF_SETFS flag to force a slow path on > > >> return. In the slow path, the address limit is checked to be USER_DS if > > >> needed. > > >> > > >> The addr_limit_user_check function is added as a cross-architecture > > >> function to check the address limit. > > >> > > >> [1] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=990 > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com> > > > > > > Thanks for reworking this series! > > > > > > The bad state correctly BUGs under the LKDTM test: > > > > > > [ 21.171586] lkdtm: Performing direct entry CORRUPT_USER_DS > > > [ 21.172791] lkdtm: setting bad task size limit > > > [ 21.173742] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > > [ 21.174641] kernel BUG at ./include/linux/syscalls.h:220! > > > ... > > > [ 21.193166] Call Trace: > > > [ 21.193617] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x1a/0x1c > > > [ 21.194443] entry_SYSCALL64_slow_path+0x25/0x25 > > > > > > > > > Tested-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> > > > > Is everyone happy with this patch for x86? Does this need anything > > more/different? > > Asking again. Additional feedback? Anyone wants to pick-it up? Can do. This needs to be a combo of all 3 I assume as the x86 one contains the function used by all of them, right? Thanks, tglx
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.