All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	x86@kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>, Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: [kernel-hardening] Re: [RFC v2] implement SL*B and stack usercopy runtime checks
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 10:53:22 +0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110719065322.GA3228@albatros> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1107181610350.31576@router.home>

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 16:18 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> 
> > --- a/mm/slab.c
> > +++ b/mm/slab.c
> > @@ -3844,6 +3844,40 @@ unsigned int kmem_cache_size(struct kmem_cache *cachep)
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmem_cache_size);
> >
> >  /*
> > + * Returns false if and only if [ptr; ptr+len) touches the slab,
> > + * but breaks objects boundaries.  It doesn't check whether the
> > + * accessed object is actually allocated.
> > + */
> > +bool slab_access_ok(const void *ptr, unsigned long len)
> > +{
> > +	struct page *page;
> > +	struct kmem_cache *cachep = NULL;
> 
> Why = NULL?

Indeed, redundant.

> > +	struct slab *slabp;
> > +	unsigned int objnr;
> > +	unsigned long offset;
> > +
> > +	if (!len)
> > +		return true;
> > +	if (!virt_addr_valid(ptr))
> > +		return true;
> > +	page = virt_to_head_page(ptr);
> > +	if (!PageSlab(page))
> > +		return true;
> > +
> > +	cachep = page_get_cache(page);
> > +	slabp = page_get_slab(page);
> > +	objnr = obj_to_index(cachep, slabp, (void *)ptr);
> > +	BUG_ON(objnr >= cachep->num);
> > +	offset = (const char *)ptr - obj_offset(cachep) -
> > +	    (const char *)index_to_obj(cachep, slabp, objnr);
> > +	if (offset <= obj_size(cachep) && len <= obj_size(cachep) - offset)
> > +		return true;
> > +
> > +	return false;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(slab_access_ok);
> > +
> > +/*
> >   * This initializes kmem_list3 or resizes various caches for all nodes.
> >   */
> >  static int alloc_kmemlist(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t gfp)
> 
> > --- a/mm/slub.c
> > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > @@ -2623,6 +2623,34 @@ unsigned int kmem_cache_size(struct kmem_cache *s)
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmem_cache_size);
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Returns false if and only if [ptr; ptr+len) touches the slab,
> > + * but breaks objects boundaries.  It doesn't check whether the
> > + * accessed object is actually allocated.
> > + */
> > +bool slab_access_ok(const void *ptr, unsigned long len)
> > +{
> > +	struct page *page;
> > +	struct kmem_cache *s = NULL;
> 
> No need to assign NULL.

Ditto.

> > +	unsigned long offset;
> > +
> > +	if (len == 0)
> > +		return true;
> > +	if (!virt_addr_valid(ptr))
> > +		return true;
> > +	page = virt_to_head_page(ptr);
> > +	if (!PageSlab(page))
> > +		return true;
> > +
> > +	s = page->slab;
> > +	offset = ((const char *)ptr - (const char *)page_address(page)) % s->size;
> 
> Are the casts necessary? Both are pointers to void *

Is it normal kernel style to use void* pointer arithmetic?

> > +	if (offset <= s->objsize && len <= s->objsize - offset)
> 
> If offset == s->objsize then we access the first byte after the object.

Well, then objsize - offset == 0 and len can be 0 only to pass the right
part of && check.  But (len == 0) case is already handled above.

But yes, for better readability it should be "<".


Thank you,

-- 
Vasiliy Kulikov
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	x86@kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>, Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] implement SL*B and stack usercopy runtime checks
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 10:53:22 +0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110719065322.GA3228@albatros> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1107181610350.31576@router.home>

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 16:18 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> 
> > --- a/mm/slab.c
> > +++ b/mm/slab.c
> > @@ -3844,6 +3844,40 @@ unsigned int kmem_cache_size(struct kmem_cache *cachep)
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmem_cache_size);
> >
> >  /*
> > + * Returns false if and only if [ptr; ptr+len) touches the slab,
> > + * but breaks objects boundaries.  It doesn't check whether the
> > + * accessed object is actually allocated.
> > + */
> > +bool slab_access_ok(const void *ptr, unsigned long len)
> > +{
> > +	struct page *page;
> > +	struct kmem_cache *cachep = NULL;
> 
> Why = NULL?

Indeed, redundant.

> > +	struct slab *slabp;
> > +	unsigned int objnr;
> > +	unsigned long offset;
> > +
> > +	if (!len)
> > +		return true;
> > +	if (!virt_addr_valid(ptr))
> > +		return true;
> > +	page = virt_to_head_page(ptr);
> > +	if (!PageSlab(page))
> > +		return true;
> > +
> > +	cachep = page_get_cache(page);
> > +	slabp = page_get_slab(page);
> > +	objnr = obj_to_index(cachep, slabp, (void *)ptr);
> > +	BUG_ON(objnr >= cachep->num);
> > +	offset = (const char *)ptr - obj_offset(cachep) -
> > +	    (const char *)index_to_obj(cachep, slabp, objnr);
> > +	if (offset <= obj_size(cachep) && len <= obj_size(cachep) - offset)
> > +		return true;
> > +
> > +	return false;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(slab_access_ok);
> > +
> > +/*
> >   * This initializes kmem_list3 or resizes various caches for all nodes.
> >   */
> >  static int alloc_kmemlist(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t gfp)
> 
> > --- a/mm/slub.c
> > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > @@ -2623,6 +2623,34 @@ unsigned int kmem_cache_size(struct kmem_cache *s)
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmem_cache_size);
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Returns false if and only if [ptr; ptr+len) touches the slab,
> > + * but breaks objects boundaries.  It doesn't check whether the
> > + * accessed object is actually allocated.
> > + */
> > +bool slab_access_ok(const void *ptr, unsigned long len)
> > +{
> > +	struct page *page;
> > +	struct kmem_cache *s = NULL;
> 
> No need to assign NULL.

Ditto.

> > +	unsigned long offset;
> > +
> > +	if (len == 0)
> > +		return true;
> > +	if (!virt_addr_valid(ptr))
> > +		return true;
> > +	page = virt_to_head_page(ptr);
> > +	if (!PageSlab(page))
> > +		return true;
> > +
> > +	s = page->slab;
> > +	offset = ((const char *)ptr - (const char *)page_address(page)) % s->size;
> 
> Are the casts necessary? Both are pointers to void *

Is it normal kernel style to use void* pointer arithmetic?

> > +	if (offset <= s->objsize && len <= s->objsize - offset)
> 
> If offset == s->objsize then we access the first byte after the object.

Well, then objsize - offset == 0 and len can be 0 only to pass the right
part of && check.  But (len == 0) case is already handled above.

But yes, for better readability it should be "<".


Thank you,

-- 
Vasiliy Kulikov
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	x86@kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>, Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] implement SL*B and stack usercopy runtime checks
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 10:53:22 +0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110719065322.GA3228@albatros> (raw)
Message-ID: <20110719065322.83jsvGHeD70WVDDzJib8aJikaaxg6p0-N99yA9kvlJU@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1107181610350.31576@router.home>

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 16:18 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> 
> > --- a/mm/slab.c
> > +++ b/mm/slab.c
> > @@ -3844,6 +3844,40 @@ unsigned int kmem_cache_size(struct kmem_cache *cachep)
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmem_cache_size);
> >
> >  /*
> > + * Returns false if and only if [ptr; ptr+len) touches the slab,
> > + * but breaks objects boundaries.  It doesn't check whether the
> > + * accessed object is actually allocated.
> > + */
> > +bool slab_access_ok(const void *ptr, unsigned long len)
> > +{
> > +	struct page *page;
> > +	struct kmem_cache *cachep = NULL;
> 
> Why = NULL?

Indeed, redundant.

> > +	struct slab *slabp;
> > +	unsigned int objnr;
> > +	unsigned long offset;
> > +
> > +	if (!len)
> > +		return true;
> > +	if (!virt_addr_valid(ptr))
> > +		return true;
> > +	page = virt_to_head_page(ptr);
> > +	if (!PageSlab(page))
> > +		return true;
> > +
> > +	cachep = page_get_cache(page);
> > +	slabp = page_get_slab(page);
> > +	objnr = obj_to_index(cachep, slabp, (void *)ptr);
> > +	BUG_ON(objnr >= cachep->num);
> > +	offset = (const char *)ptr - obj_offset(cachep) -
> > +	    (const char *)index_to_obj(cachep, slabp, objnr);
> > +	if (offset <= obj_size(cachep) && len <= obj_size(cachep) - offset)
> > +		return true;
> > +
> > +	return false;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(slab_access_ok);
> > +
> > +/*
> >   * This initializes kmem_list3 or resizes various caches for all nodes.
> >   */
> >  static int alloc_kmemlist(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t gfp)
> 
> > --- a/mm/slub.c
> > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > @@ -2623,6 +2623,34 @@ unsigned int kmem_cache_size(struct kmem_cache *s)
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmem_cache_size);
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Returns false if and only if [ptr; ptr+len) touches the slab,
> > + * but breaks objects boundaries.  It doesn't check whether the
> > + * accessed object is actually allocated.
> > + */
> > +bool slab_access_ok(const void *ptr, unsigned long len)
> > +{
> > +	struct page *page;
> > +	struct kmem_cache *s = NULL;
> 
> No need to assign NULL.

Ditto.

> > +	unsigned long offset;
> > +
> > +	if (len == 0)
> > +		return true;
> > +	if (!virt_addr_valid(ptr))
> > +		return true;
> > +	page = virt_to_head_page(ptr);
> > +	if (!PageSlab(page))
> > +		return true;
> > +
> > +	s = page->slab;
> > +	offset = ((const char *)ptr - (const char *)page_address(page)) % s->size;
> 
> Are the casts necessary? Both are pointers to void *

Is it normal kernel style to use void* pointer arithmetic?

> > +	if (offset <= s->objsize && len <= s->objsize - offset)
> 
> If offset == s->objsize then we access the first byte after the object.

Well, then objsize - offset == 0 and len can be 0 only to pass the right
part of && check.  But (len == 0) case is already handled above.

But yes, for better readability it should be "<".


Thank you,

-- 
Vasiliy Kulikov
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments

  reply	other threads:[~2011-07-19  6:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-07-03 11:10 [kernel-hardening] [RFC v1] implement SL*B and stack usercopy runtime checks Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-03 11:10 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-03 11:10 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-03 18:27 ` [kernel-hardening] " Linus Torvalds
2011-07-03 18:27   ` Linus Torvalds
2011-07-03 18:27   ` Linus Torvalds
2011-07-03 18:57   ` [kernel-hardening] " Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-03 18:57     ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-03 18:57     ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-03 19:10     ` [kernel-hardening] " Linus Torvalds
2011-07-03 19:10       ` Linus Torvalds
2011-07-03 19:10       ` Linus Torvalds
2011-07-03 19:24       ` [kernel-hardening] " Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-03 19:24         ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-03 19:37         ` Joe Perches
2011-07-03 19:37           ` Joe Perches
2011-07-03 19:53           ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-03 19:53             ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-06  3:39   ` Jonathan Hawthorne
2011-07-06  3:39     ` Jonathan Hawthorne
2011-07-18 18:39   ` [kernel-hardening] [RFC v2] " Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-18 18:39     ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-18 18:39     ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-18 18:52     ` [kernel-hardening] " Andrew Morton
2011-07-18 18:52       ` Andrew Morton
2011-07-18 18:52       ` Andrew Morton
2011-07-18 19:33       ` [kernel-hardening] " Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-18 19:33         ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-19  7:40       ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-19  7:40         ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-18 19:08     ` Matt Mackall
2011-07-18 19:08       ` Matt Mackall
2011-07-18 19:08       ` Matt Mackall
2011-07-18 19:24       ` [kernel-hardening] " Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-18 19:24         ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-18 19:24         ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-18 21:18     ` [kernel-hardening] " Christoph Lameter
2011-07-18 21:18       ` Christoph Lameter
2011-07-18 21:18       ` Christoph Lameter
2011-07-19  6:53       ` Vasiliy Kulikov [this message]
2011-07-19  6:53         ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-19  6:53         ` Vasiliy Kulikov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20110719065322.GA3228@albatros \
    --to=segoon@openwall.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=mpm@selenic.com \
    --cc=penberg@kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.