[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 13:10:12 +0400
From: Keun-O Park <kpark3469@...il.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>, Pratyush Anand <panand@...hat.com>, keun-o.park@...kmatter.ae
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: usercopy: Implement stack frame object validation
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 2:19 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:42 AM, Keun-O Park <kpark3469@...il.com> wrote:
>> Thanks so much for the example code. Basically I totally missed this case.
>> I modified do_usercopy_stack() slightly following your code snippet.
>> Like your comment, I could see the similar result.
>> ....
>> array_size = get_random_int() & 0x0F;
>> if (to_user) {
>> unsigned char array[array_size];
>> ....
>> pr_info("attempting bad copy_to_user of distant stack 2\n");
>> if (copy_to_user((void __user *)user_addr, array,
>> unconst + sizeof(array))) {
>> pr_warn("copy_to_user failed, but lacked Oops\n");
>> goto free_user;
>> }
>> ....
>> # echo USERCOPY_STACK_FRAME_TO > DIRECT
>> [ 1999.832209] Before dynamic alloc: ffffffc079013d40
>> [ 1999.832309] After dynamic alloc: ffffffc079013d40
>> [ 1999.832370] lkdtm: attempting good copy_to_user of local stack
>> [ 1999.832476] lkdtm: attempting bad copy_to_user of distant stack
>> [ 1999.832562] usercopy: kernel memory exposure attempt detected from
>> ffffffc079013d20 (<process stack>) (32 bytes)
>> [ 1999.832636] usercopy: BUG()!!!
>> [ 1999.832693] lkdtm: attempting bad copy_to_user of distant stack 2
>> [ 1999.832779] usercopy: kernel memory exposure attempt detected from
>> ffffffc079013d30 (<process stack>) (6 bytes)
>> [ 1999.832853] usercopy: BUG()!!!
>>
>> This is output of GCC 4.9, so maybe the sp value is not expected one.
>> Anyway it looks to me that the object should be scanned from oldframe.
>
> Am I correct in understanding that your code worked correctly? I.e.
> Access to "array" worked, but stepping beyond it failed? (Does
> sizeof() work with dynamic stack allocations?)
My implementation can not detect this case. LKDTM stack test regards
that this array is out of stackframe.
So BUG() is called.
sizeof() works fine with dynamic stack allocations for me.
Thanks.
BR
Sahara
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.
