[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2019 10:36:02 +0100
From: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To: Jason Yan <yanaijie@...wei.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, zhaohongjiang@...wei.com,
miaoxie@...wei.com, Li Bin <huawei.libin@...wei.com>,
Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usercopy: skip the check if not a real usercopy
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:10 PM Jason Yan <yanaijie@...wei.com> wrote:
> Some kernel codes use copy_to/from_user to copy data between kernel
> buffers by calling set_fs(KERNEL_DS). Hardened usercopy will check these
> objects and sometimes soft lockup may happen as follows:
>
> [ 96.314420] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#4 stuck for 22s! [sh:356]
> ......
> [ 96.674904] Call Trace:
> [ 96.684489] __check_object_size+0x1f1/0x460
> [ 96.691669] __probe_kernel_write+0x195/0x390
> [ 96.696821] ftrace_write+0x67/0xa0
I think it makes sense to focus on the __probe_kernel_write(), not the
KERNEL_DS.
>
> It's unnecessary to check these objects for copying between kernel buffers.
> So skip all hardened usercopy tests.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Yan <yanaijie@...wei.com>
> CC: Li Bin <huawei.libin@...wei.com>
> CC: Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@...wei.com>
> ---
> mm/usercopy.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/usercopy.c b/mm/usercopy.c
> index 852eb4e53f06..8a0a1854f564 100644
> --- a/mm/usercopy.c
> +++ b/mm/usercopy.c
> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
> #include <linux/atomic.h>
> #include <linux/jump_label.h>
> #include <asm/sections.h>
> +#include <linux/uaccess.h>
>
> /*
> * Checks if a given pointer and length is contained by the current
> @@ -255,6 +256,10 @@ void __check_object_size(const void *ptr, unsigned long n, bool to_user)
> if (static_branch_unlikely(&bypass_usercopy_checks))
> return;
>
> + /* Skip all tests if it is not a real usercopy. */
> + if (uaccess_kernel())
> + return;
> +
> /* Skip all tests if size is zero. */
> if (!n)
> return;
As an alternative, maybe it would make sense to only do this when the
access is coming through __probe_kernel_read() and
__probe_kernel_write()? These functions are specifically for accessing
arbitrary kernel memory, including via things like kcore and kgdb; so
I don't think usercopy restrictions make sense for them. I'm actually
surprised that people haven't complained about this earlier.
I had to do something similar for my "complain on kernel pagefault in
usercopy code" series, by adding the per-task number
"kernel_uaccess_faults_ok" and incrementing/decrementing it in
__probe_kernel_{read,write}; see commit
9da3f2b74054406f87dff7101a569217ffceb29b.
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.
