Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] kprobe: Do not use uaccess functions to access kernel memory that can fault
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
In-Reply-To: <20190215191949.04604191@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Fri, 15 Feb 2019 17:32:55 -0800
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        Changbin Du <changbin.du@gmail.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D1A39BE5-CAB2-42D1-B87B-2E21906FE5B1@amacapital.net>
References: <20190215174712.372898450@goodmis.org> <20190215174945.557218316@goodmis.org> <CAHk-=wjP4bEYCFaKZVG4kLWmYBctyfsW9jjhC91tiTk9WwB8Rg@mail.gmail.com> <20190215171539.4682f0b4@gandalf.local.home> <300C4516-A093-43AE-8707-1C42486807A4@amacapital.net> <20190215191949.04604191@gandalf.local.home>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


> On Feb 15, 2019, at 4:19 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>=20
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 15:49:35 -0800
> Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>=20
>> I=E2=80=99m missing most of the context here, but even probe_kernel_...()=
 is
>> unwise for a totally untrustworthy address. It could be MMIO, for
>> example.
>=20
> True, but kprobes are used like modules, and only allowed by root. They
> are used to poke literally anywhere one wants. That's the entire
> purpose of kprobes.
>=20
>>=20
>> If needed, we could come up with a safe-ish helper for tracing.  For
>> direct-map addresses, probe_kernel_...() is probably okay.  Same for
>> the current stack. Otherwise we could walk the page tables and check
>> that the address is cacheable, I suppose, although this is slightly
>> dubious if we don=E2=80=99t also check MTRRs. We could also check that th=
e PA
>> is in main memory, I suppose, although this may have unfortunate
>> interactions with the MCE code.
>=20
> I added you just because I wanted help getting the change log correct,
> as that's what Linus was complaining about. I kept using "kernel
> address" when the sample bug used for the patch was really a
> non-canonical address (as Linus said, it's just garbage. Neither kernel
> or user space). But I pointed out that this can also bug if the
> address is canonical and in the kernel address space. The old code
> didn't complain about non-canonical or kernel address faulting before
> commit 9da3f2b7405, which only talks about kernel address space
> faulting (which is why I only mentioned that in my messages).
>=20
> Would changing all the mention of "kernel address" to "non user space"
> be accurate?
>=20

I think =E2=80=9Ckernel address=E2=80=9D is right. It=E2=80=99s illegal to a=
ccess anything that isn=E2=80=99t known to be a valid kernel address while i=
n KERNEL_DS.

The old __copy seems likely to have always been a bit bogus.

BTW, what is this probe_mem_read() thing?  Some minimal inspection suggests i=
t=E2=80=99s a buggy reimplementation of probe_kernel_read().  Can you delete=
 it and just use probe_kernel_read() directly?

> For reference:
>=20
>  http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190215174945.557218316@goodmis.org
>  http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190215142015.860423791@goodmis.org
>=20
> -- Steve