[lkml]   [2020]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/4] powerpc/64s: implement probe_kernel_read/write without touching AMR
Hey Nicholas,

On 4/7/20 6:01 AM, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> Nicholas Piggin's on April 3, 2020 9:05 pm:
>> Christophe Leroy's on April 3, 2020 8:31 pm:
>>> Le 03/04/2020 à 11:35, Nicholas Piggin a écrit :
>>>> There is no need to allow user accesses when probing kernel addresses.
>>> I just discovered the following commit
>>> This commit adds probe_kernel_read_strict() and probe_kernel_write_strict().
>>> When reading the commit log, I understand that probe_kernel_read() may
>>> be used to access some user memory. Which will not work anymore with
>>> your patch.
>> Hmm, I looked at _strict but obviously not hard enough. Good catch.
>> I don't think probe_kernel_read() should ever access user memory,
>> the comment certainly says it doesn't, but that patch sort of implies
>> that they do.
>> I think it's wrong. The non-_strict maybe could return userspace data to
>> you if you did pass a user address? I don't see why that shouldn't just
>> be disallowed always though.
>> And if the _strict version is required to be safe, then it seems like a
>> bug or security issue to just allow everyone that doesn't explicitly
>> override it to use the default implementation.
>> Also, the way the weak linkage is done in that patch, means parisc and
>> um archs that were previously overriding probe_kernel_read() now get
>> the default probe_kernel_read_strict(), which would be wrong for them.
> The changelog in commit 75a1a607bb7 makes it a bit clearer. If the
> non-_strict variant is used on non-kernel addresses, then it might not
> return -EFAULT or it might cause a kernel warning. The _strict variant
> is supposed to be usable with any address and it will return -EFAULT if
> it was not a valid and mapped kernel address.
> The non-_strict variant can not portably access user memory because it
> uses KERNEL_DS, and its documentation says its only for kernel pointers.
> So powerpc should be fine to run that under KUAP AFAIKS.
> I don't know why the _strict behaviour is not just made default, but
> the implementation of it does seem to be broken on the archs that
> override the non-_strict variant.

Yeah, we should make it default and only add a "opt out" for the old legacy
cases; there was also same discussion started over here just recently [0].



 \ /
  Last update: 2020-04-07 11:11    [W:0.046 / U:1.980 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site