[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJcbSZHi6454skNpG8ecMnq90LdUfcxy2RYZD+7og1C1PeypvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 10:20:35 -0700
From: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@....com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, 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>,
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: Re: [PATCH v10 2/3] arm/syscalls: Check
address limit on user-mode return
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 05:58:20PM +0300, Leonard Crestez wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Probably best to revert. I stopped looking at these patches during
> the discussion, as the discussion seemed to be mainly around other
> architectures, and I thought we had ARM settled.
>
> Looking at this patch now, there's several things I'm not happy with.
>
> The effect of adding a the new TIF flag for FSCHECK amongst the other
> flags is that we end up overflowing the 8-bit constant, and have to
> split the tests, meaning more instructions in the return path. Eg:
>
> - tst r1, #_TIF_SYSCALL_WORK | _TIF_WORK_MASK
> + tst r1, #_TIF_SYSCALL_WORK
> + bne fast_work_pending
> + tst r1, #_TIF_WORK_MASK
> bne fast_work_pending
>
> should be written:
>
> tst r1, #_TIF_SYSCALL_WORK
> tsteq r1, #_TIF_WORK_MASK
> bne fast_work_pending
>
> and:
>
> - tst r1, #_TIF_SYSCALL_WORK | _TIF_WORK_MASK
> + tst r1, #_TIF_SYSCALL_WORK
> + bne fast_work_pending
> + tst r1, #_TIF_WORK_MASK
>
> should be:
>
> tst r1, #_TIF_SYSCALL_WORK
> tsteq r1, #_TIF_WORK_MASK
>
> There's no need for extra branches.
>
> Now, the next issue is that I don't think this TIF-flag approach is
> good for ARM - alignment faults can happen any time due to misaligned
> packets in the networking code, and we really don't want to be doing
> this check in a place that we can loop.
>
> My original suggestion for ARM was to do the address limit check after
> all work had been processed, with interrupts disabled (so no
> possibility of this kind of loop happening.) However, that seems to
> have been replaced with this TIF approach, which is going to cause
> loops - I suspect if the probes code is enabled, this will suffer
> the same problem. Remember, the various probes stuff can walk
> userspace stacks, which means they'll be using set_fs().
>
> I don't see why we've ended up with this (imho) sub-standard TIF-flag
> approach, and I think it's going to be very problematical.
>
> Can we please go back to the approach I suggested back in March for
> ARM that doesn't suffer from this problem?
During the extensive thread discussion, Linus asked to move away from
architecture specific changes to this work flag system. I am glad to
fix the assembly as you asked on a separate patch.
>
> --
> RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
> FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
> according to speedtest.net.
--
Thomas
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.
