All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: robin.murphy@arm.com (Robin Murphy)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] drivers: char: mem: Check {read,write}_kmem() addresses
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 17:45:14 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <574DBF9A.3030403@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160531134617.GA11321@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>

On 31/05/16 14:46, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 01:52:45PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> Arriving at read_kmem() with an offset representing a bogus kernel
>> address (e.g. 0 from a simple "cat /dev/kmem") leads to copy_to_user
>> faulting on the kernel-space read.
>>
>> x86_64 happens to get away with this since the optimised implementation
>> uses "rep movs*", thus the user write (which is allowed to fault) and
>> the kernel read are the same instruction, the kernel-side fault falls
>> into the userspace fixup handler and a chain of events transpires
>> leading to returning the expected -EFAULT. On other architectures,
>> though, the read is not covered by the fixup entry for the write, and we
>> get a straightforward "Unable to hande kernel paging request..." dump.
>>
>> The more typical use-case of mmap_kmem() already validates the address
>> with pfn_valid() as one might expect, so let's make that consistent
>> across {read,write}_kem() too.
>>
>> Reported-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
>> ---
>>
>> I'm not sure if this warrants going to stable or not, as it's really
>> just making an existing failure case more graceful and less confusing.
>>
>>   drivers/char/mem.c | 6 ++++++
>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/char/mem.c b/drivers/char/mem.c
>> index 71025c2f6bbb..64c766023b15 100644
>> --- a/drivers/char/mem.c
>> +++ b/drivers/char/mem.c
>> @@ -384,6 +384,9 @@ static ssize_t read_kmem(struct file *file, char __user *buf,
>>   	char *kbuf; /* k-addr because vread() takes vmlist_lock rwlock */
>>   	int err = 0;
>>
>> +	if (!pfn_valid(PFN_DOWN(p)))
>> +		return -EFAULT;
>> +
>>   	read = 0;
>>   	if (p < (unsigned long) high_memory) {
>>   		low_count = count;
>> @@ -512,6 +515,9 @@ static ssize_t write_kmem(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
>>   	char *kbuf; /* k-addr because vwrite() takes vmlist_lock rwlock */
>>   	int err = 0;
>>
>> +	if (!pfn_valid(PFN_DOWN(p)))
>> +		return -EFAULT;
>
> Since the /dev/kmem interface is about kernel virtual address rather
> than physical (like /dev/mem), the pfn may not always be mapped. I think
> a better check would be to use kern_addr_valid(kaddr) just before
> copy_(to|from)_user (a similar approach is taken by read_kcore()). The
> downside is that it breaks a couple of configurations where
> kern_addr_valid() is 0:

Well, the mmap() case, which is arguably the "normal" access method, 
looks to have been enforcing pfn_valid since pretty much forever[1] so I 
struggle to imagine how much anyone will actually care. In my view it's 
more just that "do a silly thing and get an error" seems preferable to 
"do a silly thing and get a scary backtrace".

Robin.

[1]:http://lwn.net/Articles/147901/ - I particularly enjoyed 
"[...]chances are that /dev/kmem will not survive into 2.6.14"

>
> - x86_32 with !CONFIG_FLATMEM
> - alpha with CONFIG_DISCONTIGMEM
>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: arnd@arndb.de, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
	wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: char: mem: Check {read,write}_kmem() addresses
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 17:45:14 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <574DBF9A.3030403@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160531134617.GA11321@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>

On 31/05/16 14:46, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 01:52:45PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> Arriving at read_kmem() with an offset representing a bogus kernel
>> address (e.g. 0 from a simple "cat /dev/kmem") leads to copy_to_user
>> faulting on the kernel-space read.
>>
>> x86_64 happens to get away with this since the optimised implementation
>> uses "rep movs*", thus the user write (which is allowed to fault) and
>> the kernel read are the same instruction, the kernel-side fault falls
>> into the userspace fixup handler and a chain of events transpires
>> leading to returning the expected -EFAULT. On other architectures,
>> though, the read is not covered by the fixup entry for the write, and we
>> get a straightforward "Unable to hande kernel paging request..." dump.
>>
>> The more typical use-case of mmap_kmem() already validates the address
>> with pfn_valid() as one might expect, so let's make that consistent
>> across {read,write}_kem() too.
>>
>> Reported-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
>> ---
>>
>> I'm not sure if this warrants going to stable or not, as it's really
>> just making an existing failure case more graceful and less confusing.
>>
>>   drivers/char/mem.c | 6 ++++++
>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/char/mem.c b/drivers/char/mem.c
>> index 71025c2f6bbb..64c766023b15 100644
>> --- a/drivers/char/mem.c
>> +++ b/drivers/char/mem.c
>> @@ -384,6 +384,9 @@ static ssize_t read_kmem(struct file *file, char __user *buf,
>>   	char *kbuf; /* k-addr because vread() takes vmlist_lock rwlock */
>>   	int err = 0;
>>
>> +	if (!pfn_valid(PFN_DOWN(p)))
>> +		return -EFAULT;
>> +
>>   	read = 0;
>>   	if (p < (unsigned long) high_memory) {
>>   		low_count = count;
>> @@ -512,6 +515,9 @@ static ssize_t write_kmem(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
>>   	char *kbuf; /* k-addr because vwrite() takes vmlist_lock rwlock */
>>   	int err = 0;
>>
>> +	if (!pfn_valid(PFN_DOWN(p)))
>> +		return -EFAULT;
>
> Since the /dev/kmem interface is about kernel virtual address rather
> than physical (like /dev/mem), the pfn may not always be mapped. I think
> a better check would be to use kern_addr_valid(kaddr) just before
> copy_(to|from)_user (a similar approach is taken by read_kcore()). The
> downside is that it breaks a couple of configurations where
> kern_addr_valid() is 0:

Well, the mmap() case, which is arguably the "normal" access method, 
looks to have been enforcing pfn_valid since pretty much forever[1] so I 
struggle to imagine how much anyone will actually care. In my view it's 
more just that "do a silly thing and get an error" seems preferable to 
"do a silly thing and get a scary backtrace".

Robin.

[1]:http://lwn.net/Articles/147901/ - I particularly enjoyed 
"[...]chances are that /dev/kmem will not survive into 2.6.14"

>
> - x86_32 with !CONFIG_FLATMEM
> - alpha with CONFIG_DISCONTIGMEM
>

  reply	other threads:[~2016-05-31 16:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-05-31 12:52 [PATCH] drivers: char: mem: Check {read,write}_kmem() addresses Robin Murphy
2016-05-31 12:52 ` Robin Murphy
2016-05-31 13:08 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-05-31 13:08   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-05-31 13:40   ` Robin Murphy
2016-05-31 13:40     ` Robin Murphy
2016-06-01  6:42     ` Kefeng Wang
2016-06-01  6:42       ` Kefeng Wang
2016-05-31 13:46 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-05-31 13:46   ` Catalin Marinas
2016-05-31 16:45   ` Robin Murphy [this message]
2016-05-31 16:45     ` Robin Murphy
2016-06-01 18:21 ` [PATCH v2] " Robin Murphy
2016-06-01 18:21   ` Robin Murphy

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=574DBF9A.3030403@arm.com \
    --to=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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.