Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] vfs: fix IMA lockdep circular locking dependency | From | Mimi Zohar <> | Date | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:18:19 -0400 |
| |
On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 03:18 +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 05:45:44PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote: > > >
> Frankly, I would split it in two - one introducing security_mmap_addr() > and converting the callers, and another doing the rest of it.
Ok, I split the patch. Hopefully it is bisect safe. The results of which are available from git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/zohar/linux-integrity #next-vfs-changes. But before posting them, I'd like to understand what should be done regarding the issues you raised.
> Said that, I'm not sure I like the resulting picture. > > 1) caller in __bprm_mm_init() is simply ridiculous - note that > arguments are bleeding *constants*, so it might very well have > been a BUG_ON(). If it fails, you'll have every execve() fail.
ok, checking the addr based on the same constants doesn't make sense. Replace it with a BUG_ON() as you suggested?
> 2) get_unmapped_area() probably ought to grow such a caller and > I really suspect that it would've killed quite a few of them.
?
> 3) expand_downwards() seems to be missing the basic sanity checks on the > validity of VMA range (arch_mmap_check(), that is). itanic opencodes > the equivalent before calling expand_stack(); arm and mn10300 do not > bother, which might or might not be legitimate - depends on whether > one can get a fault in the first page *and* reach the check_stack: > in e.g. arm __do_page_fault(). Which just might be possible, if attacker > maps something just above said first page with MAP_GROWSDOWN and > tries to write at very small address - IIRC, the first page on arm > contains the stuff that shouldn't be world-writable... s390 doesn't > care and I'm not sure about sparc32/sparc64 - it looks like that shouldn't > be possible to hit, but...
?
> 4) i810_dma.c ought to be switched to vm_mmap() - as discussed in that > thread back then, magical mystery wank with ->f_op reassignments does > not rely on ->mmap_sem for protection and thus can be taken out of > under ->mmap_sem.
Ok, replacing the do_mmap() with vm_mmap() would be a separate patch, but it still leaves the existing f_op reassignment with locking issues.
thanks,
Mimi
| |