lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PULL] vhost: cleanups and fixes
On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 04:06:19PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 4:00 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > + 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.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-02 12:47    [W:0.320 / U:0.532 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site