Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757965AbcJQNEx (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:04:53 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:33302 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757932AbcJQNEm (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:04:42 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:04:12 +0100 From: Mark Rutland To: Kees Cook Cc: "kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com" , LKML , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH] lib: harden strncpy_from_user Message-ID: <20161017130412.GG29095@leverpostej> References: <1472221903-31181-1-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1514 Lines: 32 On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 02:57:58PM -0400, Kees Cook wrote: > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > The strncpy_from_user() accessor is effectively a copy_from_user() > > specialised to copy strings, terminating early at a NUL byte if > > possible. In other respects it is identical, and can be used to copy an > > arbitrarily large buffer from userspace into the kernel. Conceptually, > > it exposes a similar attack surface. > > > > As with copy_from_user(), we check the destination range when the kernel > > is built with KASAN, but unlike copy_from_user() we do not check the > > destination buffer when using HARDENED_USERCOPY. As strncpy_from_user() > > calls get_user() in a loop, we must call check_object_size() explicitly. > > > > This patch adds this instrumentation to strncpy_from_user(), per the > > same rationale as with the regular copy_from_user(). In the absence of > > hardened usercopy this will have no impact as the instrumentation > > expands to an empty static inline function. [...] > Ah, yes, good catch! (And to repeat what you mentioned to me in > passing in the hall: there appear to be other users of get_user() in a > loop in other places in the kernel that will likely need some > attention too.) I was reminded of this as it just hit mainline; is it worth dropping a TODO on the KSPP wiki? I suspect I won't have the time to delve much further into this in the near term, and it might be a good intro task for someone. Thanks, Mark.