kernel-hardening - Re: [PATCH 09/38] usercopy: Mark kmalloc caches as usercopy caches

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <009da641-175c-4a50-d658-a40ac0ca7bc6@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 10:26:07 +0100
From: Ursula Braun <ubraun@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, Julian Wiedmann <jwi@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        David Windsor <dave@...lcore.net>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
        Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Luis de Bethencourt <luisbg@...nel.org>,
        Marc Zyngier
 <marc.zyngier@....com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/38] usercopy: Mark kmalloc caches as
 usercopy caches



On 1/29/20 12:01 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 08:58:31AM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 28.01.20 00:19, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 09:14:20AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>>> On 14. 11. 19, 22:27, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 01:21:54PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>>>> How is iucv the only network protocol that has run into this? Do others
>>>>>> use a bounce buffer?
>>>>>
>>>>> Another solution would be to use a dedicated kmem cache (instead of the
>>>>> shared kmalloc dma one)?
>>>>
>>>> Has there been any conclusion to this thread yet? For the time being, we
>>>> disabled HARDENED_USERCOPY on s390...
>>>>
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/kernel-hardening/9519edb7-456a-a2fa-659e-3e5a1ff89466@suse.cz/
>>>
>>> I haven't heard anything new. What did people think of a separate kmem
>>> cache?
>>>
>>
>> Adding Julian and Ursula. A separate kmem cache for iucv might be indeed
>> a solution for the user hardening issue.
> 
> It should be very clean -- any existing kmallocs already have to be
> "special" in the sense that they're marked with the DMA flag. So
> converting these to a separate cache should be mostly mechanical.
> 

Linux on System z can run within a guest hosted by the IBM mainframe operating system
z/VM. z/VM offers a transport called Inter-User Communications Vehicle (short IUCV).
It is limited to 4-byte-addresses when sending and receiving data.
One base transport for AF_IUCV sockets in the Linux kernel is this Inter-User
Communications Vehicle of z/VM. AF_IUCV sockets exist for s390 only. 

AF_IUCV sockets make use of the base socket layer, and work with sk_buffs for sending
and receiving data of variable length.
Storage for sk_buffs is allocated with __alloc_skb(), which invokes
   data = kmalloc_reserve(size, gfp_mask, node, &pfmemalloc);
For IUCV transport the "data"-address should fit into 4 bytes. That's the reason why
we work with GFP_DMA here.

kmem_caches manage memory of fixed size. This does not fit well for sk_buff memory
of variable length. Do you propose to add a kmem_cache solution for sk_buff memory here?

>> On the other hand not marking the DMA caches still seems questionable.
> 
> My understanding is that exposing DMA memory to userspace copies can
> lead to unexpected results, especially for misbehaving hardware, so I'm
> not convinced this is a generically bad hardening choice.
> 

We have not yet been reported a memory problem here. Do you have more details, if
this is really a problem for the s390 architecture?

Kind regards, Ursula 

> -Kees
> 
>>
>> For reference
>> https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156053
>> the kernel hardening now triggers a warning.
>>
>
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.