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
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-31 16:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ 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 13:08 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-05-31 13:40 ` Robin Murphy
2016-06-01 6:42 ` Kefeng Wang
2016-05-31 13:46 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-05-31 16:45 ` Robin Murphy [this message]
2016-06-01 18:21 ` [PATCH v2] " 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=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox