From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751488AbdEIG41 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 May 2017 02:56:27 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com ([74.125.82.67]:36192 "EHLO mail-wm0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750849AbdEIG4Y (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 May 2017 02:56:24 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 08:56:19 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Kees Cook Cc: Daniel Micay , Thomas Garnier , Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens , Dave Hansen , Arnd Bergmann , Thomas Gleixner , David Howells , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9?= Nyffenegger , Andrew Morton , "Paul E . McKenney" , "Eric W . Biederman" , Oleg Nesterov , Pavel Tikhomirov , Ingo Molnar , "H . Peter Anvin" , Andy Lutomirski , Paolo Bonzini , Rik van Riel , Josh Poimboeuf , Borislav Petkov , Brian Gerst , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , Christian Borntraeger , Russell King , Will Deacon , Catalin Marinas , Mark Rutland , James Morse , linux-s390 , LKML , Linux API , the arch/x86 maintainers , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Kernel Hardening , Linus Torvalds , Peter Zijlstra , Al Viro Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v9 1/4] syscalls: Verify address limit before returning to user-mode Message-ID: <20170509065619.wmqa6z6w3n6xpvrw@gmail.com> References: <20170428153213.137279-1-thgarnie@google.com> <20170508073352.caqe3fqf7nuxypgi@gmail.com> <20170508075209.7aluvpwildw325rf@gmail.com> <1494256932.1167.1.camel@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Kees Cook wrote: > > There's the option of using GCC plugins now that the infrastructure was > > upstreamed from grsecurity. It can be used as part of the regular build > > process and as long as the analysis is pretty simple it shouldn't hurt compile > > time much. > > Well, and that the situation may arise due to memory corruption, not from > poorly-matched set_fs() calls, which static analysis won't help solve. We need > to catch this bad kernel state because it is a very bad state to run in. If memory corruption corrupted the task state into having addr_limit set to KERNEL_DS then there's already a fair chance that it's game over: it could also have set *uid to 0, or changed a sensitive PF_ flag, or a number of other things... Furthermore, think about it: there's literally an infinite amount of corrupted task states that could be a security problem and that could be checked after every system call. Do we want to check every one of them? Thanks, Ingo