[kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v8 1/4] syscalls: Verify address limit before returning to user-mode

Ingo Molnar
2017-04-28T06:35:25Z

* Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@google.com> wrote:

> Ensure that a syscall does not return to user-mode with a kernel address
> limit. If that happens, a process can corrupt kernel-mode memory and
> elevate privileges [1].
>
> The CONFIG_ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK option disables the generic check so each
> architecture can create optimized versions.
>
> [1] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=990
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@google.com>
> Tested-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> ---
> Based on next-20170426
> ---
> arch/s390/Kconfig | 1 +
> include/linux/syscalls.h | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> init/Kconfig | 6 ++++++
> kernel/sys.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/s390/Kconfig b/arch/s390/Kconfig
> index d25435d94b6e..164de1d24e92 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/s390/Kconfig
> @@ -103,6 +103,7 @@ config S390
> select ARCH_INLINE_WRITE_UNLOCK_BH
> select ARCH_INLINE_WRITE_UNLOCK_IRQ
> select ARCH_INLINE_WRITE_UNLOCK_IRQRESTORE
> + select ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK
> select ARCH_SAVE_PAGE_KEYS if HIBERNATION
> select ARCH_SUPPORTS_ATOMIC_RMW
> select ARCH_SUPPORTS_DEFERRED_STRUCT_PAGE_INIT
> diff --git a/include/linux/syscalls.h b/include/linux/syscalls.h
> index 980c3c9b06f8..ebde64f1622c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/syscalls.h
> +++ b/include/linux/syscalls.h
> @@ -191,6 +191,28 @@ extern struct trace_event_functions exit_syscall_print_funcs;
> SYSCALL_METADATA(sname, x, __VA_ARGS__) \
> __SYSCALL_DEFINEx(x, sname, __VA_ARGS__)
>
> +
> +/*
> + * Called before coming back to user-mode. Returning to user-mode with an
> + * address limit different than USER_DS can allow to overwrite kernel memory.
> + */
> +static inline void addr_limit_check_syscall(void)
> +{
> + BUG_ON(!segment_eq(get_fs(), USER_DS));
> +}
> +
> +#ifndef CONFIG_ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK
> +#define ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK_PRE() \
> + bool user_caller = segment_eq(get_fs(), USER_DS)
> +#define ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK_POST() \
> + if (user_caller) addr_limit_check_syscall()
> +#else
> +#define ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK_PRE()
> +#define ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK_POST()
> +asmlinkage void addr_limit_check_failed(void) __noreturn;
> +#endif
> +
> +
> #define __PROTECT(...) asmlinkage_protect(__VA_ARGS__)
> #define __SYSCALL_DEFINEx(x, name, ...) \
> asmlinkage long sys##name(__MAP(x,__SC_DECL,__VA_ARGS__)) \
> @@ -199,7 +221,10 @@ extern struct trace_event_functions exit_syscall_print_funcs;
> asmlinkage long SyS##name(__MAP(x,__SC_LONG,__VA_ARGS__)); \
> asmlinkage long SyS##name(__MAP(x,__SC_LONG,__VA_ARGS__)) \
> { \
> - long ret = SYSC##name(__MAP(x,__SC_CAST,__VA_ARGS__)); \
> + long ret; \
> + ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK_PRE(); \
> + ret = SYSC##name(__MAP(x,__SC_CAST,__VA_ARGS__)); \
> + ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK_POST(); \
> __MAP(x,__SC_TEST,__VA_ARGS__); \
> __PROTECT(x, ret,__MAP(x,__SC_ARGS,__VA_ARGS__)); \
> return ret; \
> diff --git a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig
> index 42a346b0df43..599d9fe30703 100644
> --- a/init/Kconfig
> +++ b/init/Kconfig
> @@ -1961,6 +1961,12 @@ config PROFILING
> config TRACEPOINTS
> bool
>
> +config ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK
> + bool
> + help
> + Disable the generic address limit check. Allow each architecture to
> + optimize how and when the verification is done.
> +
> source "arch/Kconfig"
>
> endmenu # General setup
> diff --git a/kernel/sys.c b/kernel/sys.c
> index 8a94b4eabcaa..a1cbcd715d62 100644
> --- a/kernel/sys.c
> +++ b/kernel/sys.c
> @@ -2458,3 +2458,16 @@ COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE1(sysinfo, struct compat_sysinfo __user *, info)
> return 0;
> }
> #endif /* CONFIG_COMPAT */
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK
> +/*
> + * Used when an architecture specific implementation detects an invalid address
> + * limit. This function does not return.
> + */
> +asmlinkage void addr_limit_check_failed(void)
> +{
> + /* Try to fail on the generic address limit check */
> + addr_limit_check_syscall();
> + panic("Invalid address limit before returning to user-mode");
> +}
> +#endif

Ok, this version looks pretty good to me. Could you (re-)send a full series?

I assume some of these changes need to be propagated into the followup patches but
even if not it's better to pick up a clean series.

Thanks,

Ingo