[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 21:25:42 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: bsingharora@...il.com
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>,
Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...oraproject.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, sparclinux <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] mm: Hardened usercopy
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 02:55:55PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> [...]
>> +++ b/mm/usercopy.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,219 @@
>> [...]
>> +/*
>> + * Checks if a given pointer and length is contained by the current
>> + * stack frame (if possible).
>> + *
>> + * 0: not at all on the stack
>> + * 1: fully within a valid stack frame
>> + * 2: fully on the stack (when can't do frame-checking)
>> + * -1: error condition (invalid stack position or bad stack frame)
>
> Can we use enums? Makes it easier to read/debug
Sure, I will update this.
>> [...]
>> +static void report_usercopy(const void *ptr, unsigned long len,
>> + bool to_user, const char *type)
>> +{
>> + pr_emerg("kernel memory %s attempt detected %s %p (%s) (%lu bytes)\n",
>> + to_user ? "exposure" : "overwrite",
>> + to_user ? "from" : "to", ptr, type ? : "unknown", len);
>> + dump_stack();
>> + do_group_exit(SIGKILL);
>
> SIGKILL -- SIGBUS?
I'd like to keep SIGKILL since it indicates a process fiddling with a
kernel bug. The real problem here is that there doesn't seem to be an
arch-independent way to Oops the kernel and kill a process ("die()" is
closest, but it's defined on a per-arch basis with varying arguments).
This could be a BUG, but I'd rather not panic the entire kernel.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS & Brillo Security
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.
