[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1500476300.22834.13.camel@nxp.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 17:58:20 +0300
From: Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@....com>
To: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>, Thomas Gleixner
<tglx@...utronix.de>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
CC: 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>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, 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>, Linux API
<linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>, LKML
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Octavian Purdila
<octavian.purdila@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 2/3] arm/syscalls: Check address limit on user-mode
return
On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 12:04 -0700, Thomas Garnier wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@....com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 09:04 -0700, Thomas Garnier wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@....com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 18:12 -0700, Thomas Garnier 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 TIF_SETFS flag is added to _TIF_WORK_MASK shifting _TIF_SYSCALL_WORK
> > > > > for arm instruction immediate support. The global work mask is too big
> > > > > to used on a single instruction so adapt ret_fast_syscall.
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -571,6 +572,10 @@ do_work_pending(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int thread_flags, int syscall)
> > > > > * Update the trace code with the current status.
> > > > > */
> > > > > trace_hardirqs_off();
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /* Check valid user FS if needed */
> > > > > + addr_limit_user_check();
> > > > > +
> > > > > do {
> > > > > if (likely(thread_flags & _TIF_NEED_RESCHED)) {
> > > > > schedule();
> > > > This patch made it's way into linux-next next-20170717 and it seems to
> > > > cause hangs when booting some boards over NFS (found via bisection). I
> > > > don't know exactly what determines the issue but I can reproduce hangs
> > > > if even if I just boot with init=/bin/bash and do stuff like
> > > >
> > > > # sleep 1 & sleep 1 & sleep 1 & wait; wait; wait; echo done!
> > > >
> > > > When this happens sysrq-t shows a sleep task hung in the 'R' state
> > > > spinning in do_work_pending, so maybe there is a potential infinite
> > > > loop here?
> > > >
> > > > The addr_limit_user_check at the start of do_work_pending will check
> > > > for TIF_FSCHECK once and clear it but the function loops while
> > > > (thread_flags & _TIF_WORK_MASK), so it if TIF_FSCHECK is set again then
> > > > the loop will never terminate. Does this make sense?
> > >
> > > Yes, it does. Thanks for looking into this.
> > >
> > > Can you try this change?
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/signal.c b/arch/arm/kernel/signal.c
> > > index 3a48b54c6405..bc6ad7789568 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/signal.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/signal.c
> > > @@ -573,12 +573,11 @@ do_work_pending(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned
> > > int thread_flags, int syscall)
> > > */
> > > trace_hardirqs_off();
> > >
> > > - /* Check valid user FS if needed */
> > > - addr_limit_user_check();
> > > -
> > > do {
> > > if (likely(thread_flags & _TIF_NEED_RESCHED)) {
> > > schedule();
> > > + } else if (thread_flags & _TIF_FSCHECK) {
> > > + addr_limit_user_check();
> > > } else {
> > > if (unlikely(!user_mode(regs)))
> > > return 0;
> > This does seem to work, it no longer hangs on boot in my setup. This is
> > obviously only a very superficial test.
> >
> > The new location of this check seems weird, it's not clear why it
> > should be on an else path. Perhaps it should be moved to right before
> > where current_thread_info()->flags is fetched again?
> I was hitting bug when I tried that.I think that's because you
> basically let the signal handler do pending work before you check the
> flag, that's not a good idea.
> > If the purpose is hardening against buggy kernel code doing bad set_fs
> > calls shouldn't this flag also be checked before looking at
> > TIF_NEED_RESCHED and calling schedule()?
> I am not sure to be honest. I expected schedule to only schedule the
> processor to another task which would be fine given only the current
> task have a bogus fs. I will put it first in case there is an edge
> case scenario I missed.
>
> What do you think? Let me know and I will look at changes all
> architectures and testing them.
I don't know and I'd rather not guess on security issues. It's better
if someone else reviews the code.
Unless there is a very quick fix maybe this series should be removed or
reverted from linux-next? A diagnosis of "system calls can sometimes
hang on return" seems serious even for linux-next. Since it happens
very rarely in most setups I can easily imagine somebody spending a lot
of time digging at this.
--
Regards,
Leonard
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.
