Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170512075458.09a3a1ce@mschwideX1>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 07:54:58 +0200
From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Garnier
 <thgarnie@...gle.com>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
        Ingo Molnar
 <mingo@...nel.org>, Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>,
        Heiko Carstens
 <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, Arnd
 Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        David
 Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        René Nyffenegger
 <mail@...enyffenegger.ch>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Paul
 E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Eric W . Biederman"
 <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Pavel Tikhomirov
 <ptikhomirov@...tuozzo.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H . Peter
 Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini
 <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf
 <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Brian Gerst
 <brgerst@...il.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov"
 <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger
 <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Will Deacon
 <will.deacon@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Mark
 Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        "the
 arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
 <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Kernel Hardening
 <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra
 <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v9 1/4] syscalls: Verify address
 limit before returning to user-mode

On Thu, 11 May 2017 22:34:31 -0700
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:

> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:28 PM, Martin Schwidefsky
> <schwidefsky@...ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 May 2017 16:44:07 -0700
> > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >  
> >> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com> wrote:  
> >> >
> >> > Ingo: Do you want the change as-is? Would you like it to be optional?
> >> > What do you think?  
> >>
> >> I'm not ingo, but I don't like that patch. It's in the wrong place -
> >> that system call return code is too timing-critical to add address
> >> limit checks.
> >>
> >> Now what I think you *could* do is:
> >>
> >>  - make "set_fs()" actually set a work flag in the current thread flags
> >>
> >>  - do the test in the slow-path (syscall_return_slowpath).
> >>
> >> Yes, yes, that ends up being architecture-specific, but it's fairly simple.
> >>
> >> And it only slows down the system calls that actually use "set_fs()".
> >> Sure, it will slow those down a fair amount, but they are hopefully a
> >> small subset of all cases.
> >>
> >> How does that sound to people?  Thats' where we currently do that
> >>
> >>         if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING) &&
> >>             WARN(irqs_disabled(), "syscall %ld left IRQs disabled",
> >> regs->orig_ax))
> >>                 local_irq_enable();
> >>
> >> check too, which is a fairly similar issue.  
> >
> > This is exactly what Heiko did for the s390 backend as a result of this
> > discussion. See the _CIF_ASCE_SECONDARY bit in arch/s390/kernel/entry.S,
> > for the hot patch the check for the bit is included in the general
> > _CIF_WORK test. Only the slow patch gets a bit slower.
> >
> > git commit b5a882fcf146c87cb6b67c6df353e1c042b8773d
> > "s390: restore address space when returning to user space".  
> 
> If I'm understanding this, it won't catch corruption of addr_limit
> during fast-path syscalls, though (i.e. addr_limit changed without a
> call to set_fs()). :( This addr_limit corruption is mostly only a risk
> archs without THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK, but it would still be nice to catch
> unbalanced set_fs() code, so I like the idea. I like getting rid of
> addr_limit entirely even more, but that'll take some time. :)

Well for s390 there is no addr_limit as we use two separate address space
for kernel vs. user. The equivalent to the addr_limit corruption on a
fast-path syscall would be changing CR7 outside of set_fs. This boils
down to the question what we are protection against? Bad code with 
unbalanced set_fs or evil code that changes addr_limit/CR7 outside of
set_fs

-- 
blue skies,
   Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.

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.