Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] test_user_copy improvements

[David Miller]

From: James Hogan <james.hogan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:07:20 +0100

> Out of interest, is the zeroing a strict requirement for correct use, or
> a safety precaution to prevent data leakage in case of bad error checking?
> 
> (A quick look reveals that for copy_from_user() when access_ok() fails,
> only arm, arm64, frv, m32r, m68k, sparc, tile, x86, and xtensa do this).

It is required, otherwise the kernel buffer is left partially initialized
which can lead to security bugs.

> That's a good point. The reversed tests aren't really safe in that case.
> With MIPS EVA the user address is very likely to be a valid
> non-TLB-mapped address to kernel mode, and will zero arbitrary memory.
> They could also potentially crash the kernel if user memory isn't
> normally kernel accessible and the arch doesn't fix up faults for the
> kernel accesses (not EVA, but maybe sparc64?).

Sparc64 would fault on an invalid kernel address, but the problem here
is that the addresses are actually valid kernel ones.

> It is also possible (though less likely) that the kernel address will
> have a valid user mapping at the same address, so the reversed
> copy_to_user test may well leak arbitrary kernel memory to user memory
> without faulting.

Yes, this is also a problem.

>> Also, I think the tests you added and protected with MIPS ifdefs could
>> equally be enabled on sparc64.
> 
> Yes, it sounds like it. I'll try the ARCH_SPLIT_VA_SPACE idea.

Great!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/