[kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v9 1/4] syscalls: Verify address limit before returning to user-mode

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Kees Cook <keescook at chromium.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch at infradead.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 06:02:50AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 06:00:01AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> > fs/splice.c has some, ahem, interesting uses that have been the source
>>> > of nasty exploits in the past.  Converting them to use iov_iter
>>> > properly would be really, really nice.  Christoph, I don't suppose
>>> > you'd like to do that?
>>>
>>> I can take care of all the fs code including this one.
>>
>> I spent the afternoon hacking up where I'd like this to head.  It's
>> completely untested as of now:
>>
>>         http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/vfs.git/shortlog/refs/heads/setfs-elimination
>
> Ooooh yes! Nice work.
>
> I love this:
> http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/vfs.git/commitdiff/51e83f50f824ca23f5584c172138e6b7c2ff786d
> but I wonder what it'll cause out-of-tree code to do. I mean, I'd
> rather nothing out-of-tree be calling these, but I'd hate 3rd party
> hacks even more.
>
> http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/vfs.git/commitdiff/018e0e9030777121fe87e89d43066691e7366587
> This accidentally(?) removes the kernel-doc comments.
>
> http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/vfs.git/commitdiff/78b62c730254fc39fa888cdbdca08fde6e09a798
> Could this be made defensive? (Return 0 if ret wraps, for example?) I
> see what the comment says, but not everyone will read that. :(
>
> http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/vfs.git/commitdiff/a106276ca0294be054bc89ce97219933fe543df1
> Perhaps unconditionally set USER_DS on exit instead of retaining
> whatever was there?

I don't like silent fixups.  If we want to do this, we should BUG or
at least WARN, not just change the addr limit.  But I'm also not
convinced it's indicative of an actual bug here.

--Andy