All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Vaishali Thakkar <vaishali.thakkar@oracle.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	"kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com"
	<kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	David Windsor <dwindsor@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] [RFC PATCH] lib: Harden csum_partial_copy_from_user
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 04:23:02 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161103042301.GA24968@remoulade> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <581A9D8B.5040200@oracle.com>

Hi Vaishali,

On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 07:44:35AM +0530, Vaishali Thakkar wrote:
> On Thursday 03 November 2016 03:29 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> >> I know that both arm64 and x86 have a check_object_size() call in their
> >> __copy_from_user() implementations.

> >> Is that missing on some architectures?
> > 
> > Every architecture is _slightly_ different. Most put the check in
> > __copy_from_user() so it's correctly caught. (x86 puts them in both
> > since copy*() calls _copy*(), not __copy*() ... >_<)
> 
> I think still there are some architectures which didn't put the check
> in __copy_from_user() [eg. tile].

I see. :(

Looking again, a grep shows many (even those with MMUs) don't do anything at
all in v4.9-rc2:

[mark@remoulade:~/src/linux]% for ARCH in arch/*; do
printf "%d %s\n" $(git grep check_object_size -- "${ARCH}" | wc -l) ${ARCH};
done | sort -n
0 arch/alpha
0 arch/arc
0 arch/avr32
0 arch/blackfin
0 arch/c6x
0 arch/cris
0 arch/frv
0 arch/h8300
0 arch/hexagon
0 arch/Kconfig
0 arch/m32r
0 arch/m68k
0 arch/metag
0 arch/microblaze
0 arch/mn10300
0 arch/nios2
0 arch/openrisc
0 arch/score
0 arch/sh
0 arch/tile
0 arch/um
0 arch/unicore32
0 arch/xtensa
2 arch/parisc
2 arch/s390
3 arch/arm
4 arch/arm64
4 arch/ia64
4 arch/powerpc
5 arch/sparc
6 arch/mips
6 arch/x86

> I was actually wondering if there are any cases where we need any
> architecture specific extra check(s)?

Generally, I'd expect that to be orthogonal to the hardened usercopy work, and
that check would still be present in the low-level architecture-specific code
even if we made the check_object_size() checks common.

Do you have an example of the kind of thing you're worried about?

Thanks,
Mark.

  reply	other threads:[~2016-11-03  4:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-11-02 17:02 [kernel-hardening] [RFC PATCH] lib: Harden csum_partial_copy_from_user Vaishali Thakkar
2016-11-02 20:44 ` Mark Rutland
2016-11-02 21:59   ` Kees Cook
2016-11-03  2:14     ` Vaishali Thakkar
2016-11-03  4:23       ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2016-11-03  4:56         ` Vaishali Thakkar
2016-11-03 18:05           ` Mark Rutland
2016-11-04 10:03             ` Vaishali Thakkar
2016-11-03  5:03     ` Al Viro

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=20161103042301.GA24968@remoulade \
    --to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=dwindsor@gmail.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
    --cc=vaishali.thakkar@oracle.com \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /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.