On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 4:30 PM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 04:23:00PM -0600, Yu Zhao wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 2:16 PM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > 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. Given the narrow constraints, just replace the > > > __copy_from_user_inatomic() call with an open-coded version that calls > > > only into the sanitizers and not check_object_size(), followed by a call > > > to raw_copy_from_user(). > > > > > > Reported-by: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAOUHufaPshtKrTWOz7T7QFYUNVGFm0JBjvM700Nhf9qEL9b3EQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Reported-by: dev@xxxxxxxxxxx > > > Suggested-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: x86@xxxxxxxxxx > > > Fixes: 0aef499f3172 ("mm/usercopy: Detect vmalloc overruns") > > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > v2: drop the call explicitly instead of using inline to do it > > > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220916135953.1320601-1-keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx > > > --- > > > arch/x86/lib/usercopy.c | 3 ++- > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/usercopy.c b/arch/x86/lib/usercopy.c > > > index ad0139d25401..d2aff9b176cf 100644 > > > --- a/arch/x86/lib/usercopy.c > > > +++ b/arch/x86/lib/usercopy.c > > > @@ -44,7 +44,8 @@ copy_from_user_nmi(void *to, const void __user *from, unsigned long n) > > > * called from other contexts. > > > */ > > > pagefault_disable(); > > > - ret = __copy_from_user_inatomic(to, from, n); > > > + instrument_copy_from_user(to, from, n); > > > > Got a build error on top of mm-unstable: > > > > arch/x86/lib/usercopy.c:47:2: error: call to undeclared function > > 'instrument_copy_from_user'; ISO C99 and later do not support implicit > > function declarations [-Wimplicit-function-declaration] > > instrument_copy_from_user(to, from, n); > > ^ > > arch/x86/lib/usercopy.c:47:2: note: did you mean 'instrument_copy_to_user'? > > ./include/linux/instrumented.h:117:1: note: 'instrument_copy_to_user' > > declared here > > instrument_copy_to_user(void __user *to, const void *from, unsigned long n) > > ^ > > 1 error generated. > > Hm, I did test builds of this before sending. I wonder why this passed > for me. I suppose this is needed explicitly in arch/x86/lib/usercopy.c: >instrument_copy_to_user() > #include <linux/instrumented.h> It seems mm-unstable has switched to instrument_copy_from_user_{before,after}(). Adding Alex.
