[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9edd517d0238dc3319788a23d708b68102cdbc2f.camel@russell.cc>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 18:01:32 +1100
From: Russell Currey <ruscur@...sell.cc>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>, keescook@...omium.org,
mpe@...erman.id.au
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dja@...ens.net,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lkdtm: Test KUAP directional user access unlocks on
powerpc
On Fri, 2020-01-31 at 07:58 +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
> Le 31/01/2020 à 07:53, Russell Currey a écrit :
> > On Fri, 2020-01-31 at 07:44 +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > > Le 31/01/2020 à 06:31, Russell Currey a écrit :
> > > > + pr_info("attempting bad read at %px with write
> > > > allowed\n",
> > > > ptr);
> > > > + tmp = *ptr;
> > > > + tmp += 0xc0dec0de;
> > > > + prevent_write_to_user(ptr, sizeof(unsigned long));
> > >
> > > Does it work ? I would have thought that if the read fails the
> > > process
> > > will die and the following test won't be performed.
> >
> > Correct, the ACCESS_USERSPACE test does the same thing. Splitting
> > this
> > into separate R and W tests makes sense, even if it is unlikely
> > that
> > one would be broken without the other.
> >
>
> Or once we are using user_access_begin() stuff, we can use
> unsafe_put_user() and unsafe_get_user() which should return an error
> instead of killing the caller.
Even better, and thanks for your work on all this stuff.
- Russell
>
> Christophe
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.
