Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1682690
| From | Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@google.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] x86/syscalls: Check address limit on user-mode return |
| Date | 2017-07-06 22:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u0lJ7-2av-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <tSrC1-4gc-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <tUxWG-4Sn-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <tXpq1-t5-145@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@google.com> wrote: > >> Ensure the address limit is a user-mode segment before returning to > >> user-mode. Otherwise a process can corrupt kernel-mode memory and elevate > >> privileges [1]. > >> > >> The set_fs function sets the TIF_SETFS flag to force a slow path on > >> return. In the slow path, the address limit is checked to be USER_DS if > >> needed. > >> > >> The addr_limit_user_check function is added as a cross-architecture > >> function to check the address limit. > >> > >> [1] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=990 > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@google.com> > > > > Thanks for reworking this series! > > > > The bad state correctly BUGs under the LKDTM test: > > > > [ 21.171586] lkdtm: Performing direct entry CORRUPT_USER_DS > > [ 21.172791] lkdtm: setting bad task size limit > > [ 21.173742] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > [ 21.174641] kernel BUG at ./include/linux/syscalls.h:220! > > ... > > [ 21.193166] Call Trace: > > [ 21.193617] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x1a/0x1c > > [ 21.194443] entry_SYSCALL64_slow_path+0x25/0x25 > > > > > > Tested-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> > > Is everyone happy with this patch for x86? Does this need anything > more/different? Asking again. Additional feedback? Anyone wants to pick-it up? > > Thanks! > > -Kees > > -- > Kees Cook > Pixel Security -- Thomas
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] x86/syscalls: Check address limit on user-mode return Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@google.com> - 2017-07-06 22:40 +0200 Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] x86/syscalls: Check address limit on user-mode return Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@google.com> - 2017-07-06 23:00 +0200 Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] x86/syscalls: Check address limit on user-mode return Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2017-07-06 23:00 +0200
csiph-web