On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 04:37:01PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2022-01-20 13:03, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 12:22:35PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > > On 2022-01-19 19:12, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 06:43:10PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > > > > Indeed, my impression is that the only legitimate way to get hold of a page
> > > > > pointer without assumed provenance is via pfn_to_page(), which is where
> > > > > pfn_valid() comes in. Thus pfn_valid(page_to_pfn()) really *should* be a
> > > > > tautology.
> > > >
> > > > That can only be true if pfn == page_to_pfn(pfn_to_page(pfn)) for all
> > > > values of pfn.
> > > >
> > > > Given how pfn_to_page() is defined in the sparsemem case:
> > > >
> > > > #define __pfn_to_page(pfn) \
> > > > ({ unsigned long __pfn = (pfn); \
> > > > struct mem_section *__sec = __pfn_to_section(__pfn); \
> > > > __section_mem_map_addr(__sec) + __pfn; \
> > > > })
> > > > #define page_to_pfn __page_to_pfn
> > > >
> > > > that isn't the case, especially when looking at page_to_pfn():
> > > >
> > > > #define __page_to_pfn(pg) \
> > > > ({ const struct page *__pg = (pg); \
> > > > int __sec = page_to_section(__pg); \
> > > > (unsigned long)(__pg - __section_mem_map_addr(__nr_to_section(__sec))); \
> > > > })
> > > >
> > > > Where:
> > > >
> > > > static inline unsigned long page_to_section(const struct page *page)
> > > > {
> > > > return (page->flags >> SECTIONS_PGSHIFT) & SECTIONS_MASK;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > So if page_to_section() returns something that is, e.g. zero for an
> > > > invalid page in a non-zero section, you're not going to end up with
> > > > the right pfn from page_to_pfn().
> > >
> > > Right, I emphasised "should" in an attempt to imply "in the absence of
> > > serious bugs that have further-reaching consequences anyway".
> > >
> > > > As I've said now a couple of times, trying to determine of a struct
> > > > page pointer is valid is the wrong question to be asking.
> > >
> > > And doing so in one single place, on the justification of avoiding an
> > > incredibly niche symptom, is even more so. Not to mention that an address
> > > size fault is one of the best possible outcomes anyway, vs. the untold
> > > damage that may stem from accesses actually going through to random parts of
> > > the physical memory map.
> >
> > I don't see it as a "niche" symptom.
>
> The commit message specifically cites a Data Abort "at address translation
> later". Broadly speaking, a Data Abort due to an address size fault only
> occurs if you've been lucky enough that the bogus PA which got mapped is so
> spectacularly wrong that it's beyond the range configured in TCR.IPS. How
> many other architectures even have a mechanism like that?
I think we're misinterpreting each other.
> > If we start off with the struct page being invalid, then the result of
> > page_to_pfn() can not be relied upon to produce something that is
> > meaningful - which is exactly why the vmap() issue arises.
> >
> > With a pfn_valid() check, we at least know that the PFN points at
> > memory.
>
> No, we know it points to some PA space which has a struct page to represent
> it. pfn_valid() only says that pfn_to_page() will yield a valid result. That
> also includes things like reserved pages covering non-RAM areas, where a
> kernel VA mapping existing at all could potentially be fatal to the system
> even if it's never explicitly accessed - for all we know it might be a
> carveout belonging to overly-aggressive Secure software such that even a
> speculative prefetch might trigger an instant system reset.
So are you saying that the "address size fault" can happen because we've
mapped something for which pfn_valid() returns true?
> > However, that memory could be _anything_ in the system - it
> > could be the kernel image, and it could give userspace access to
> > change kernel code.
> >
> > So, while it is useful to do a pfn_valid() check in vmap(), as I said
> > to willy, this must _not_ be the primary check. It should IMHO use
> > WARN_ON() to make it blatently obvious that it should be something we
> > expect _not_ to trigger under normal circumstances, but is there to
> > catch programming errors elsewhere.
>
> Rather, "to partially catch unrelated programming errors elsewhere, provided
> the buggy code happens to call vmap() rather than any of the many other
> functions with a struct page * argument." That's where it stretches my
> definition of "useful" just a bit too far. It's not about perfect being the
> enemy of good, it's about why vmap() should be special, and death by a
> thousand "useful" cuts - if we don't trust the pointer, why not check its
> alignment for basic plausibility first? If it seems valid, why not check if
> the page flags look sensible to make sure? How many useful little checks is
> too many? Every bit of code footprint and execution overhead imposed
> unconditionally on all end users to theoretically save developers' debugging
> time still adds up. Although on that note, it looks like arch/arm's
> pfn_valid() is still a linear scan of the memblock array, so the overhead of
> adding that for every page in every vmap() might not even be so small...
Well, I think I've adequately explained why I believe:
pfn_is_valid(page_to_pfn(page))
being used as the primary check is substandard, and will likely lead to
a future CVE. When generating an array of struct page's, I believe that
it is the responsibility for the generator to ensure that the array
only contains valid pages.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
