lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jul]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/6] syscalls: use uaccess_kernel in addr_limit_user_check
From
Date
On 7/20/20 10:20 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:15:37PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>> - if (CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(uaccess_kernel(),
>>>> + if (CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(!uaccess_kernel(),
>>>>
>>>> How does this work anywhere ?
>>>
>>> No, that is the wrong check - we want to make sure the address
>>> space override doesn't leak to userspace. The problem is that
>>> armnommu (and m68knommu, but that doesn't call the offending
>>> function) pretends to not have a kernel address space, which doesn't
>>> really work. Here is the fix I sent out yesterday, which I should
>>> have Cc'ed you on, sorry:
>>>
>>
>> The patch below makes sense, and it does work, but I still suspect
>> that something with your original patch is wrong, or at least suspicious.
>> Reason: My change above (Adding the "!") works for _all_ of my arm boot
>> tests. Or, in other words, it doesn't make a difference if true
>> or false is passed as first parameter of CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(), except
>> for nommu systems. Also, unless I am really missing something, your
>> original patch _does_ reverse the logic.
>
> Well. segment_eq is in current mainline used in two places:
>
> 1) to implement uaccess_kernel
> 2) in addr_limit_user_check to implement uaccess_kernel-like
> semantics using a strange reverse notation
>
> I think the explanation for your observation is how addr_limit_user_check
> is called on arm. The addr_limit_check_failed wrapper for it is called
> from assembly code, but only after already checking the addr_limit,
> basically duplicating the segment_eq check. So for mmu builds it won't
> get called unless we leak the kernel address space override, which
> is a pretty fatal error and won't show up in your boot tests. The
> only good way to test it is by explicit injecting it using the
> lkdtm module.
>

Guess I lost it somewhere. Are you saying the check was wrong all along
and your patch fixed it ?

Thanks,
Guenter

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-07-21 07:31    [W:0.684 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site