Re: [PULL] vhost: cleanups and fixes
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Date: 2018-11-02 13:04:23
Also in:
kvm, lkml
Subsystem:
the rest, x86 architecture (32-bit and 64-bit) · Maintainers:
Linus Torvalds, Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, Dave Hansen
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 11:46:36AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 04:06:19PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:quoted
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 4:00 PM Kees Cook [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
+ memset(&rsp, 0, sizeof(rsp)); + rsp.response = VIRTIO_SCSI_S_FUNCTION_REJECTED; + resp = vq->iov[out].iov_base; + ret = __copy_to_user(resp, &rsp, sizeof(rsp)); Is it actually safe to trust that iov_base has passed an earlier access_ok() check here? Why not just use copy_to_user() instead?Good point. We really should have removed those double-underscore things ages ago.FWIW, on arm64 we always check/sanitize the user address as a result of our sanitization of speculated values. Almost all of our uaccess routines have an explicit access_ok(). All our uaccess routines mask the user pointer based on addr_limit, which prevents speculative or architectural uaccess to kernel addresses when addr_limit it USER_DS: 4d8efc2d5ee4c9cc ("arm64: Use pointer masking to limit uaccess speculation") We also inhibit speculative stores to addr_limit being forwarded under speculation: c2f0ad4fc089cff8 ("arm64: uaccess: Prevent speculative use of the current addr_limit") ... and given all that, we folded explicit access_ok() checks into __{get,put}_user(): 84624087dd7e3b48 ("arm64: uaccess: Don't bother eliding access_ok checks in __{get, put}_user") IMO we could/should do the same for __copy_{to,from}_user(). Thanks, Mark.
I've tried making access_ok mask the parameter it gets. Works because access_ok is a macro. Most users pass in a variable so that will block attempts to use speculation to bypass the access_ok checks. Not 100% as someone can copy the value before access_ok, but then it's all mitigation anyway. Places which call access_ok on a non-lvalue need to be fixed then but there are not too many of these. The advantage here is that a code like this: access_ok for(...) __get_user isn't slowed down as the masking is outside the loop. OTOH macros changing their arguments are kind of ugly. What do others think? Just to show what I mean: Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
index aae77eb8491c..c4d12c8f47d7 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ #include <linux/compiler.h> #include <linux/kasan-checks.h> #include <linux/string.h> +#include <linux/nospec.h> #include <asm/asm.h> #include <asm/page.h> #include <asm/smap.h>
@@ -69,6 +70,33 @@ static inline bool __chk_range_not_ok(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size, un __chk_range_not_ok((unsigned long __force)(addr), size, limit); \ }) +/* + * Test whether a block of memory is a valid user space address. + * Returns 0 if the range is valid, address itself otherwise. + */ +static inline unsigned long __verify_range_nospec(unsigned long addr, + unsigned long size, + unsigned long limit) +{ + /* Be careful about overflow */ + limit = array_index_nospec(limit, size); + + /* + * If we have used "sizeof()" for the size, + * we know it won't overflow the limit (but + * it might overflow the 'addr', so it's + * important to subtract the size from the + * limit, not add it to the address). + */ + if (__builtin_constant_p(size)) { + return array_index_nospec(addr, limit - size + 1); + } + + /* Arbitrary sizes? Be careful about overflow */ + return array_index_mask_nospec(limit, size) & + array_index_nospec(addr, limit - size + 1); +} + #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP # define WARN_ON_IN_IRQ() WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_task()) #else
@@ -95,12 +123,46 @@ static inline bool __chk_range_not_ok(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size, un * checks that the pointer is in the user space range - after calling * this function, memory access functions may still return -EFAULT. */ -#define access_ok(type, addr, size) \ +#define unsafe_access_ok(type, addr, size) \ ({ \ WARN_ON_IN_IRQ(); \ likely(!__range_not_ok(addr, size, user_addr_max())); \ }) +/** + * access_ok_nospec: - Checks if a user space pointer is valid + * @type: Type of access: %VERIFY_READ or %VERIFY_WRITE. Note that + * %VERIFY_WRITE is a superset of %VERIFY_READ - if it is safe + * to write to a block, it is always safe to read from it. + * @addr: User space pointer to start of block to check + * @size: Size of block to check + * + * Context: User context only. This function may sleep if pagefaults are + * enabled. + * + * Checks if a pointer to a block of memory in user space is valid. + * + * Returns address itself (nonzero) if the memory block may be valid, + * zero if it is definitely invalid. + * + * To prevent speculation, the returned value must then be used + * for accesses. + * + * Note that, depending on architecture, this function probably just + * checks that the pointer is in the user space range - after calling + * this function, memory access functions may still return -EFAULT. + */ +#define access_ok_nospec(type, addr, size) \ +({ \ + WARN_ON_IN_IRQ(); \ + __chk_user_ptr(addr); \ + addr = (typeof(addr) __force) \ + __verify_range_nospec((unsigned long __force)(addr), \ + size, user_addr_max()); \ +}) + +#define access_ok(type, addr, size) access_ok_nospec(type, addr, size) + /* * These are the main single-value transfer routines. They automatically * use the right size if we just have the right pointer type.
--
MST