Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 23 Mar 2022 08:40:30 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc:     kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
        John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, lkp@lists.01.org,
        lkp@intel.com, "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [scsi]  6aded12b10: kernel_BUG_at_mm/usercopy.c
Message-ID: <202203230809.D63BF9511@keescook>
References: <20220320143453.GD6208@xsang-OptiPlex-9020>
 <20220323071409.GA25480@lst.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220323071409.GA25480@lst.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 08:14:10AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> The actual warning is;
> 
> [   34.496096][  T331] usercopy: Kernel memory overwrite attempt detected to spans multiple pages (off set 0, size 6)!
> 
> This is for the cmnd field in struct scsi_cmnd, which is allocated by
> the block layer as part of the request allocator.  So with a specific
> packing it can legitimately span pages.
> 
> Kees: how can we annotate that this is ok?

The main problem is that CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY_PAGESPAN=y is broken
(and nothing should be setting it).

This series removes it:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hardening/20220110231530.665970-1-willy@infradead.org/

Matthew, what's the status of that series? Will it make the current
merge window?

As for the SCSI changes, I'm a bit worried about type confusion, as I
don't see anything actually validating types/sizes when converting:

static inline void *blk_mq_rq_to_pdu(struct request *rq)
{
        return rq + 1;
}

But I guess that ship has sailed. :P

Regardless, I'm concerned that disabling PAGESPAN will just uncover
further checks, though. Where is allocation happening? The check is here:

static int scsi_fill_sghdr_rq(struct scsi_device *sdev, struct request *rq,
                struct sg_io_hdr *hdr, fmode_t mode)
{
        struct scsi_cmnd *scmd = blk_mq_rq_to_pdu(rq);

        if (hdr->cmd_len < 6)
                return -EMSGSIZE;
        if (copy_from_user(scmd->cmnd, hdr->cmdp, hdr->cmd_len))
                return -EFAULT;
	...
}

I don't see any earlier marking for this copy_from_user(), so I assume
the old allocation was a plain kmalloc().

For comparision, a related marking can be seen for a copy_to_user() case
in commit 0afe76e88c57 ("scsi: Define usercopy region in scsi_sense_cache
slab cache")

I *think* the allocation is happening in scsi_ioctl_reset()? But that's
a plain kmalloc(), so I'm not sure why PAGESPAN would have tripped...
are there other allocation paths?

-- 
Kees Cook