* Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > * Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> > And yes, I realize that there were other such bugs and that such bugs might > >> > occur in the future - but why not push the overhead of the security check to > >> > the kernel build phase? I.e. I'm wondering how well we could do static > >> > analysis during kernel build - would a limited mode of Sparse be good enough > >> > for that? Or we could add a new static checker to tools/, built from first > >> > principles and used primarily for extended syntactical checking. > >> > >> Static analysis is just not going to cover all cases. We've had vulnerabilities > >> where interrupt handlers left KERNEL_DS set, for example. [...] > > > > Got any commit ID of that bug - was it because a function executed by the > > interrupt handler leaked KERNEL_DS? > > Ah, it was an exception handler, but the one I was thinking of was this: > https://lwn.net/Articles/419141/ Ok, so that's CVE-2010-4258, where an oops with KERNEL_DS set was used to escalate privileges, due to the kernel's oops handler not cleaning up the KERNEL_DS. The exploit used another bug, a crash in a network protocol handler, to execute the oops handler with KERNEL_DS set. The explanation of the exploit itself points out that it's a very interesting bug and I agree, it's not a general kernel bug but a bug in a very narrow code path (oops handling) that caused this, and I don't see how that example can be turned into a general example: it was a bug in oops handling to let the process continue execution (and perform the CLEARTID operation) *and* leak the address limit at KERNEL_DS. By similar argument a bug in the runtime checking of the address limit may allow exploits. Consider the oops path cleanup a similarly sensitive code path as the address limit check. To handle this category of exploits it would be enough to add a runtime check to the _oops handling code itself_ (to make sure we've set addr_limit back to USER_DS even if we crash in a KERNEL_DS code area), not to every system call! That check would avoid that particular historic pattern, if combined with static analysis that ensured that KERNEL_DS is always set/restored correctly. (Which btw. I believe some of the regular static scans of the kernel are already doing today.) Furthermore, to go back to your original argument: > Static analysis is just not going to cover all cases. it's not even true that a runtime check will 'cover all cases': for example a similar bug to CVE-2010-4258 could still be exploited: - Note that the actual put_user() was not prevented via the runtime check - the runtime check would run *after* the buggy put_user() was done. The runtime check warns or panics after the fact, which might (or might not) be enough to prevent the exploit. - Also note that a slightly different form of the bug would still be exploitable, even with the runtime check: for example if the task-shutdown code can be made to unconditionally set KERNEL_DS, but after the put_user(), then the runtime check would not 'cover all cases'. So the argument for doing this runtime check after every system call is very dubious. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
