user/sven/linux.git/include/linux/uaccess.h, branch v5.4.262

uaccess: Add minimum bounds check on kernel buffer size

2023-03-11T15:43:56Z

[ Upstream commit 04ffde1319a715bd0550ded3580d4ea3bc003776 ] While there is logic about the difference between ksize and usize, copy_struct_from_user() didn't check the size of the destination buffer (when it was known) against ksize. Add this check so there is an upper bounds check on the possible memset() call, otherwise lower bounds checks made by callers will trigger bounds warnings under -Warray-bounds. Seen under GCC 13: In function 'copy_struct_from_user', inlined from 'iommufd_fops_ioctl' at ../drivers/iommu/iommufd/main.c:333:8: ../include/linux/fortify-string.h:59:33: warning: '__builtin_memset' offset [57, 4294967294] is out of the bounds [0, 56] of object 'buf' with type 'union ucmd_buffer' [-Warray-bounds=] 59 | #define __underlying_memset __builtin_memset | ^ ../include/linux/fortify-string.h:453:9: note: in expansion of macro '__underlying_memset' 453 | __underlying_memset(p, c, __fortify_size); \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ../include/linux/fortify-string.h:461:25: note: in expansion of macro '__fortify_memset_chk' 461 | #define memset(p, c, s) __fortify_memset_chk(p, c, s, \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ../include/linux/uaccess.h:334:17: note: in expansion of macro 'memset' 334 | memset(dst + size, 0, rest); | ^~~~~~ ../drivers/iommu/iommufd/main.c: In function 'iommufd_fops_ioctl': ../drivers/iommu/iommufd/main.c:311:27: note: 'buf' declared here 311 | union ucmd_buffer buf; | ^~~ Cc: Christian Brauner Cc: Rasmus Villemoes Cc: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Dinh Nguyen Cc: Catalin Marinas Cc: Andrew Morton Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Alexander Potapenko Acked-by: Aleksa Sarai Signed-off-by: Kees Cook Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230203193523.never.667-kees@kernel.org/ Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

uaccess: Add non-pagefault user-space write function

2020-01-17T18:48:40Z

commit 1d1585ca0f48fe7ed95c3571f3e4a82b2b5045dc upstream. Commit 3d7081822f7f ("uaccess: Add non-pagefault user-space read functions") missed to add probe write function, therefore factor out a probe_write_common() helper with most logic of probe_kernel_write() except setting KERNEL_DS, and add a new probe_user_write() helper so it can be used from BPF side. Again, on some archs, the user address space and kernel address space can co-exist and be overlapping, so in such case, setting KERNEL_DS would mean that the given address is treated as being in kernel address space. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko Cc: Masami Hiramatsu Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/9df2542e68141bfa3addde631441ee45503856a8.1572649915.git.daniel@iogearbox.net Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

uaccess: implement a proper unsafe_copy_to_user() and switch filldir over to it

2019-10-07T19:56:48Z

In commit 9f79b78ef744 ("Convert filldir[64]() from __put_user() to unsafe_put_user()") I made filldir() use unsafe_put_user(), which improves code generation on x86 enormously. But because we didn't have a "unsafe_copy_to_user()", the dirent name copy was also done by hand with unsafe_put_user() in a loop, and it turns out that a lot of other architectures didn't like that, because unlike x86, they have various alignment issues. Most non-x86 architectures trap and fix it up, and some (like xtensa) will just fail unaligned put_user() accesses unconditionally. Which makes that "copy using put_user() in a loop" not work for them at all. I could make that code do explicit alignment etc, but the architectures that don't like unaligned accesses also don't really use the fancy "user_access_begin/end()" model, so they might just use the regular old __copy_to_user() interface. So this commit takes that looping implementation, turns it into the x86 version of "unsafe_copy_to_user()", and makes other architectures implement the unsafe copy version as __copy_to_user() (the same way they do for the other unsafe_xyz() accessor functions). Note that it only does this for the copying _to_ user space, and we still don't have a unsafe version of copy_from_user(). That's partly because we have no current users of it, but also partly because the copy_from_user() case is slightly different and cannot efficiently be implemented in terms of a unsafe_get_user() loop (because gcc can't do asm goto with outputs). It would be trivial to do this using "rep movsb", which would work really nicely on newer x86 cores, but really badly on some older ones. Al Viro is looking at cleaning up all our user copy routines to make this all a non-issue, but for now we have this simple-but-stupid version for x86 that works fine for the dirent name copy case because those names are short strings and we simply don't need anything fancier. Fixes: 9f79b78ef744 ("Convert filldir[64]() from __put_user() to unsafe_put_user()") Reported-by: Guenter Roeck Reported-and-tested-by: Tony Luck Cc: Al Viro Cc: Max Filippov Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

lib: introduce copy_struct_from_user() helper

2019-10-01T13:45:03Z

A common pattern for syscall extensions is increasing the size of a struct passed from userspace, such that the zero-value of the new fields result in the old kernel behaviour (allowing for a mix of userspace and kernel vintages to operate on one another in most cases). While this interface exists for communication in both directions, only one interface is straightforward to have reasonable semantics for (userspace passing a struct to the kernel). For kernel returns to userspace, what the correct semantics are (whether there should be an error if userspace is unaware of a new extension) is very syscall-dependent and thus probably cannot be unified between syscalls (a good example of this problem is [1]). Previously there was no common lib/ function that implemented the necessary extension-checking semantics (and different syscalls implemented them slightly differently or incompletely[2]). Future patches replace common uses of this pattern to make use of copy_struct_from_user(). Some in-kernel selftests that insure that the handling of alignment and various byte patterns are all handled identically to memchr_inv() usage. [1]: commit 1251201c0d34 ("sched/core: Fix uclamp ABI bug, clean up and robustify sched_read_attr() ABI logic and code") [2]: For instance {sched_setattr,perf_event_open,clone3}(2) all do do similar checks to copy_struct_from_user() while rt_sigprocmask(2) always rejects differently-sized struct arguments. Suggested-by: Rasmus Villemoes Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai Reviewed-by: Kees Cook Reviewed-by: Christian Brauner Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20191001011055.19283-2-cyphar@cyphar.com Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner

uaccess: add missing __must_check attributes

2019-09-26T00:51:40Z

The usercopy implementation comments describe that callers of the copy_*_user() family of functions must always have their return values checked. This can be enforced at compile time with __must_check, so add it where needed. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201908251609.ADAD5CAAC1@keescook Signed-off-by: Kees Cook Cc: Alexander Viro Cc: Dan Carpenter Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

uaccess: Add a prototype of non-static __probe_user_read()

2019-05-26T03:04:43Z

Declare a prototype of non-static __probe_user_read() as same as __probe_kernel_read() at uaccess.h. Reported-by: kbuild test robot Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware)

uaccess: Add non-pagefault user-space read functions

2019-05-26T03:04:42Z

Add probe_user_read(), strncpy_from_unsafe_user() and strnlen_unsafe_user() which allows caller to access user-space in IRQ context. Current probe_kernel_read() and strncpy_from_unsafe() are not available for user-space memory, because it sets KERNEL_DS while accessing data. On some arch, user address space and kernel address space can be co-exist, but others can not. In that case, setting KERNEL_DS means given address is treated as a kernel address space. Also strnlen_user() is only available from user context since it can sleep if pagefault is enabled. To access user-space memory without pagefault, we need these new functions which sets USER_DS while accessing the data. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/155789869802.26965.4940338412595759063.stgit@devnote2 Acked-by: Ingo Molnar Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware)

x86/uaccess: Allow access_ok() in irq context if pagefault_disabled

2019-05-26T03:04:42Z

WARN_ON_IN_IRQ() assumes that the access_ok() and following user memory access can sleep. But this assumption is not always correct; when the pagefault is disabled, following memory access will just returns -EFAULT and never sleep. Add pagefault_disabled() check in WARN_ON_ONCE() so that it can ignore the case we call it with disabling pagefault. For this purpose, this modified pagefault_disabled() as an inline function. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/155789868664.26965.7932665824135793317.stgit@devnote2 Acked-by: Ingo Molnar Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware)

x86/uaccess: Introduce user_access_{save,restore}()

2019-04-03T09:02:19Z

Introduce common helpers for when we need to safely suspend a uaccess section; for instance to generate a {KA,UB}SAN report. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: Borislav Petkov Cc: Josh Poimboeuf Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar

make 'user_access_begin()' do 'access_ok()'

2019-01-04T20:56:09Z

Originally, the rule used to be that you'd have to do access_ok() separately, and then user_access_begin() before actually doing the direct (optimized) user access. But experience has shown that people then decide not to do access_ok() at all, and instead rely on it being implied by other operations or similar. Which makes it very hard to verify that the access has actually been range-checked. If you use the unsafe direct user accesses, hardware features (either SMAP - Supervisor Mode Access Protection - on x86, or PAN - Privileged Access Never - on ARM) do force you to use user_access_begin(). But nothing really forces the range check. By putting the range check into user_access_begin(), we actually force people to do the right thing (tm), and the range check vill be visible near the actual accesses. We have way too long a history of people trying to avoid them. Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds