[PATCH v10 2/3] arm/syscalls: Check address limit on user-mode return

[Thomas Garnier]

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Leonard Crestez
<leonard.crestez at nxp.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 12:04 -0700, Thomas Garnier wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez at nxp.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 09:04 -0700, Thomas Garnier wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez at nxp.com> wrote:
>> > > > On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 18:12 -0700, Thomas Garnier wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Ensure the address limit is a user-mode segment before returning to
>> > > > > user-mode. Otherwise a process can corrupt kernel-mode memory and
>> > > > > elevate privileges [1].
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The set_fs function sets the TIF_SETFS flag to force a slow path on
>> > > > > return. In the slow path, the address limit is checked to be USER_DS if
>> > > > > needed.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The TIF_SETFS flag is added to _TIF_WORK_MASK shifting _TIF_SYSCALL_WORK
>> > > > > for arm instruction immediate support. The global work mask is too big
>> > > > > to used on a single instruction so adapt ret_fast_syscall.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > @@ -571,6 +572,10 @@ do_work_pending(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int thread_flags, int syscall)
>> > > > >        * Update the trace code with the current status.
>> > > > >        */
>> > > > >       trace_hardirqs_off();
>> > > > > +
>> > > > > +     /* Check valid user FS if needed */
>> > > > > +     addr_limit_user_check();
>> > > > > +
>> > > > >       do {
>> > > > >               if (likely(thread_flags & _TIF_NEED_RESCHED)) {
>> > > > >                       schedule();
>> > > > This patch made it's way into linux-next next-20170717 and it seems to
>> > > > cause hangs when booting some boards over NFS (found via bisection). I
>> > > > don't know exactly what determines the issue but I can reproduce hangs
>> > > > if even if I just boot with init=/bin/bash and do stuff like
>> > > >
>> > > > # sleep 1 & sleep 1 & sleep 1 & wait; wait; wait; echo done!
>> > > >
>> > > > When this happens sysrq-t shows a sleep task hung in the 'R' state
>> > > > spinning in do_work_pending, so maybe there is a potential infinite
>> > > > loop here?
>> > > >
>> > > > The addr_limit_user_check at the start of do_work_pending will check
>> > > > for TIF_FSCHECK once and clear it but the function loops while
>> > > > (thread_flags & _TIF_WORK_MASK), so it if TIF_FSCHECK is set again then
>> > > > the loop will never terminate. Does this make sense?
>> > >
>> > > Yes, it does. Thanks for looking into this.
>> > >
>> > > Can you try this change?
>> > >
>> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/signal.c b/arch/arm/kernel/signal.c
>> > > index 3a48b54c6405..bc6ad7789568 100644
>> > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/signal.c
>> > > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/signal.c
>> > > @@ -573,12 +573,11 @@ do_work_pending(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned
>> > > int thread_flags, int syscall)
>> > >   */
>> > >   trace_hardirqs_off();
>> > >
>> > > - /* Check valid user FS if needed */
>> > > - addr_limit_user_check();
>> > > -
>> > >   do {
>> > >   if (likely(thread_flags & _TIF_NEED_RESCHED)) {
>> > >   schedule();
>> > > + } else if (thread_flags & _TIF_FSCHECK) {
>> > > + addr_limit_user_check();
>> > >   } else {
>> > >   if (unlikely(!user_mode(regs)))
>> > >   return 0;
>> > This does seem to work, it no longer hangs on boot in my setup. This is
>> > obviously only a very superficial test.
>> >
>> > The new location of this check seems weird, it's not clear why it
>> > should be on an else path. Perhaps it should be moved to right before
>> > where current_thread_info()->flags is fetched again?
>
>> I was hitting bug when I tried that.I think that's because you
>> basically let the signal handler do pending work before you check the
>> flag, that's not a good idea.
>
>> > If the purpose is hardening against buggy kernel code doing bad set_fs
>> > calls shouldn't this flag also be checked before looking at
>> > TIF_NEED_RESCHED and calling schedule()?
>> I am not sure to be honest. I expected schedule to only schedule the
>> processor to another task which would be fine given only the current
>> task have a bogus fs. I will put it first in case there is an edge
>> case scenario I missed.
>>
>> What do you think? Let me know and I will look at changes all
>> architectures and testing them.
>
> I don't know and I'd rather not guess on security issues. It's better
> if someone else reviews the code.
>
> Unless there is a very quick fix maybe this series should be removed or
> reverted from linux-next? A diagnosis of "system calls can sometimes
> hang on return" seems serious even for linux-next. Since it happens
> very rarely in most setups I can easily imagine somebody spending a lot
> of time digging at this.

I will send fixes for each architecture in the meantime.

>
> --
> Regards,
> Leonard



-- 
Thomas