Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86/dumpstack: Inline copy_from_user_nmi()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 12:57:23PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 06:59:51 -0700 Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > This fixes a find_vmap_area() deadlock. The main fix is patch 2, repeated here:
> > 
> >     The check_object_size() helper under CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY is
> >     designed to skip any checks where the length is known at compile time as
> >     a reasonable heuristic to avoid "likely known-good" cases. However, it can
> >     only do this when the copy_*_user() helpers are, themselves, inline too.
> > 
> >     Using find_vmap_area() requires taking a spinlock. The check_object_size()
> >     helper can call find_vmap_area() when the destination is in vmap memory.
> >     If show_regs() is called in interrupt context, it will attempt a call to
> >     copy_from_user_nmi(), which may call check_object_size() and then
> >     find_vmap_area(). If something in normal context happens to be in the
> >     middle of calling find_vmap_area() (with the spinlock held), the interrupt
> >     handler will hang forever.
> > 
> >     The copy_from_user_nmi() call is actually being called with a fixed-size
> >     length, so check_object_size() should never have been called in the
> >     first place. In order for check_object_size() to see that the length is
> >     a fixed size, inline copy_from_user_nmi(), as already done with all the
> >     other uaccess helpers.
> > 
> 
> Why is this so complicated.
> 
> There's virtually zero value in running all those debug checks from within
> copy_from_user_nmi().
> 
> --- a/arch/x86/lib/usercopy.c~a
> +++ a/arch/x86/lib/usercopy.c
> @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ copy_from_user_nmi(void *to, const void
>  	 * called from other contexts.
>  	 */
>  	pagefault_disable();
> -	ret = __copy_from_user_inatomic(to, from, n);
> +	ret = raw_copy_from_user(to, from, n);
>  	pagefault_enable();
>  
>  	return ret;

I'm with Andrew here; this looks a *LOT* saner than all the other stuff.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Newbies]     [x86 Platform Driver]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux