Re: [PATCH v14 1/4] asm-generic,arm64: create task variant of access_ok

Gregory Price
2023-03-29T18:03:04Z

On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 07:58:51PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/29, Gregory Price wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 07:13:22PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > - if (selector && !access_ok(selector, sizeof(*selector)))
> > > - return -EFAULT;
> > > -
> > > break;
> > > default:
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> >
> > The result of this would be either a task calling via prctl or a tracer
> > calling via ptrace would be capable of setting selector to a bad pointer
> > and producing a SIGSEGV on the next system call.
>
> Yes,
>
> > It's a pretty small footgun, but maybe that's reasonable?
>
> I hope this is reasonable,
>
> > From a user perspective, debugging this behavior would be nightmarish.
> > Your call to prctl/ptrace would succeed and the process would continue
> > to execute until the next syscall - at which point you incur a SIGSEGV,
>
> Yes. But how does this differ from the case when, for example, user
> does prtcl(PR_SET_SYSCALL_USER_DISPATCH, selector = 1) ? Or another
> bad address < TASK_SIZE?
>
> access_ok() will happily succeed, then later syscall_user_dispatch()
> will equally trigger SIGSEGV.
>
> Oleg.
>

I'm convinced now, this feels like the correct solution. I will pull
your suggested patch ahead and drop the task variant of access_ok.

Am I ok to add your signed-off-by to the suggested patch, and i'll add
it to the series? Not quite sure what the correct set of tags is,
since i don't have any suggested changes to your patch.

~Gregory