Received: by 2002:a05:6358:1087:b0:cb:c9d3:cd90 with SMTP id j7csp4995076rwi; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 13:56:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM7mtk95E5AVk+PujHrzIcewFSLpg7+rwu20hv8GZtsWdLIJOl7SMJ1t06hm1t3vWM/jfu61 X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:1a8d:b0:20d:be0b:a320 with SMTP id ng13-20020a17090b1a8d00b0020dbe0ba320mr21076129pjb.107.1666040197694; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 13:56:37 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1666040197; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=EveSePcAzi4Ca/vrZhhY3LqWqxV94R/QqGpkCdXnni46YadIXQQ9lZ44oS36l4Ohau HKFhWhxjcMO0r3X88FeK27MZeIxeXbV/sa31wqJcnusa5hqTddMeZgG/v8VWkfulA6mB avh9wobTbiNSs7z0OyYdBsXmfkOoIxHVis7Wt9UBIFjNrhr9FEZNblw2kmo8T1vvfd2g wiZl3tOyuKd8Ho2DT0kWS7+97XDng4+btnC5/iA/oLg8W8GXdCpHXpNmkus+dFqQ71CS q2TD1VnoNuqeYrbbEFpbXCsRF5adpntUaNJnAtYi3MY4GNroTv34i58eM6g3JVSfXmBi Zxyg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:organization:in-reply-to:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :dkim-signature; bh=hwlhz4E6n8FNB23iItsdVABaiC2GRqUWPRHvFlOCNAE=; b=tS4Dk8azRJDAIb9Ao1Sz8OxDt2+1e1rqEe/cyErlbdYVfPXRcOXkeLizJuvVn9fJoP BTs0Gnfd/3gIFXDDFLruwqJz47+nTE11caypXsJdAGlsbla+Sf2z4XJcvCiEyWVYBE6P paF23OWAnonY/AX3D1bqrKkDzJ2yh9ei1uUTc2mzVG29zR4Vylr+uQ9aTnzp7FD71znD lbQqMgZqjkY/Ji5LjkJ1kXHpmRPe5Nd/KRmk1uKcB/HQazGvf5Ey+bsMyW5FXAeOFp+3 GcMBTlMULh53FJmwnvuVtEkkPYo1F/8y9Da9SvVNtcOuynVcTjbzh9Z7tn0H9bYAUdjQ TrPg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@intel.com header.s=Intel header.b=gOWN70+f; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com Return-Path: Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email. [2620:137:e000::1:20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id f7-20020a056a00238700b0056391cc1e6asi12591878pfc.354.2022.10.17.13.56.24; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 13:56:37 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@intel.com header.s=Intel header.b=gOWN70+f; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231473AbiJQUdL (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 17 Oct 2022 16:33:11 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:44090 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230292AbiJQUc4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2022 16:32:56 -0400 Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 211172317A for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 13:29:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1666038589; x=1697574589; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=PU9aa6CXppJ3uBLC9tV3QHDj74uj9e3OMPUKK2iQ3Mc=; b=gOWN70+fTp+j1Lb2UDX7YQJxovfQ2PqhB9sBTbDr6uTDqeo+QNOR1g1U g0jgS3Ev7clAlFzRt6y/z5aQRqycZ7A48xpRZCt3c7W0lGYCPodk08phA /6c1QL0oy5HhFJcjRHNWOxftubPBacl+VHUXEeL1k6CCx5PkamzrRL7Ls 0BKMigqqhRe7a8/ecpJhS4toBNrTvqmmDTfNHrSGG8N5LrHvxd2Ufgaxi 7sAZVtw49cgFcnzC0JpHcS49cXlo+wAEX3XlgNzML5tEXBZ+v0O+WOjy8 InNDUDBkHtxrIevDigq4C3CtbwgHtg/sPOgEg+tk3EFOtRWhti9opNUqd g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10503"; a="304650227" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.95,192,1661842800"; d="scan'208";a="304650227" Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Oct 2022 13:27:07 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10503"; a="697193413" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.95,192,1661842800"; d="scan'208";a="697193413" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.54]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 17 Oct 2022 13:27:05 -0700 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1okWhT-0092Rj-2r; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 23:27:03 +0300 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 23:27:03 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Jane Chu Cc: pmladek@suse.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, senozhatsky@chromium.org, linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] vsprintf: protect kernel from panic due to non-canonical pointer dereference Message-ID: References: <20221017194447.2579441-1-jane.chu@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20221017194447.2579441-1-jane.chu@oracle.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 01:44:47PM -0600, Jane Chu wrote: > While debugging a separate issue, it was found that an invalid string > pointer could very well contain a non-canical address, such as non-canical? > 0x7665645f63616465. In that case, this line of defense isn't enough > to protect the kernel from crashing due to general protection fault > > if ((unsigned long)ptr < PAGE_SIZE || IS_ERR_VALUE(ptr)) > return "(efault)"; > > So run one more round of check via kern_addr_valid(). On architectures > that provide meaningful implementation, this line of check effectively > catches non-canonical pointers, etc. OK, but I don't see how this is useful in the form of returning efault here. Ideally we should inform user that the pointer is wrong and how it's wrong. But. It will crash somewhere else at some point, right? I mean that there is no guarantee that kernel has protection in every single place against dangling / invalid pointers. One way or another it will crash. That said, honestly I have no idea how this patch may be considered anything but band-aid. OTOH, I don't see a harm. Perhaps others will share their opinions. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko