[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 09:52:25 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Kees Cook' <keescook@...omium.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com"
<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, "sparclinux@...r.kernel.org"
<sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, "Andrea
Arcangeli" <aarcange@...hat.com>, "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Russell King
<linux@...linux.org.uk>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, Catalin Marinas
<catalin.marinas@....com>, PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>, Borislav Petkov
<bp@...e.de>, Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>, Fenghua Yu
<fenghua.yu@...el.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, David Rientjes
<rientjes@...gle.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, Andy Lutomirski
<luto@...nel.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, Laura Abbott
<labbott@...oraproject.org>, Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>, "Ard
Biesheuvel" <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>, Casey Schaufler
<casey@...aufler-ca.com>, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, "David S.
Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 00/11] mm: Hardened usercopy
From: Kees Cook
> Sent: 15 July 2016 22:44
> This is a start of the mainline port of PAX_USERCOPY[1].
...
> - if address range is in the current process stack, it must be within the
> current stack frame (if such checking is possible) or at least entirely
> within the current process's stack.
...
That description doesn't seem quite right to me.
I presume the check is:
Within the current process's stack and not crossing the ends of the
current stack frame.
The 'current' stack frame is likely to be that of copy_to/from_user().
Even if you use the stack of the caller, any problematic buffers
are likely to have been passed in from a calling function.
So unless you are going to walk the stack (good luck on that)
I'm not sure checking the stack frames is worth it.
I'd also guess that a lot of copies are from the middle of structures
so cannot fail the tests you are adding.
David
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.
