Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] mm: Hardened usercopy
From: Kees Cook <hidden>
Date: 2016-07-15 04:25:48
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-mm, linuxppc-dev, lkml, sparclinux
From: Kees Cook <hidden>
Date: 2016-07-15 04:25:48
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-mm, linuxppc-dev, lkml, sparclinux
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Balbir Singh [off-list ref] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 02:55:55PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:quoted
[...]+++ b/mm/usercopy.c@@ -0,0 +1,219 @@[...] +/* + * Checks if a given pointer and length is contained by the current + * stack frame (if possible). + * + * 0: not at all on the stack + * 1: fully within a valid stack frame + * 2: fully on the stack (when can't do frame-checking) + * -1: error condition (invalid stack position or bad stack frame)Can we use enums? Makes it easier to read/debug
Sure, I will update this.
quoted
[...] +static void report_usercopy(const void *ptr, unsigned long len, + bool to_user, const char *type) +{ + pr_emerg("kernel memory %s attempt detected %s %p (%s) (%lu bytes)\n", + to_user ? "exposure" : "overwrite", + to_user ? "from" : "to", ptr, type ? : "unknown", len); + dump_stack(); + do_group_exit(SIGKILL);SIGKILL -- SIGBUS?
I'd like to keep SIGKILL since it indicates a process fiddling with a
kernel bug. The real problem here is that there doesn't seem to be an
arch-independent way to Oops the kernel and kill a process ("die()" is
closest, but it's defined on a per-arch basis with varying arguments).
This could be a BUG, but I'd rather not panic the entire kernel.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS & Brillo Security