diff options
author | Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> | 2016-08-17 23:42:08 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> | 2016-10-31 21:01:56 +0100 |
commit | d7c816733d501b59dbdc2483f2cc8e4431fd9160 (patch) | |
tree | 2b612eb24d1a506dc4cf4a5a519fb53e382b8bc0 /lib/list_debug.c | |
parent | Linux 4.9-rc1 (diff) | |
download | linux-d7c816733d501b59dbdc2483f2cc8e4431fd9160.tar.xz linux-d7c816733d501b59dbdc2483f2cc8e4431fd9160.zip |
list: Split list_add() debug checking into separate function
Right now, __list_add() code is repeated either in list.h or in
list_debug.c, but the only differences between the two versions
are the debug checks. This commit therefore extracts these debug
checks into a separate __list_add_valid() function and consolidates
__list_add(). Additionally this new __list_add_valid() function will stop
list manipulations if a corruption is detected, instead of allowing for
further corruption that may lead to even worse conditions.
This is slight refactoring of the same hardening done in PaX and Grsecurity.
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'lib/list_debug.c')
-rw-r--r-- | lib/list_debug.c | 48 |
1 files changed, 23 insertions, 25 deletions
diff --git a/lib/list_debug.c b/lib/list_debug.c index 3859bf63561c..149dd57b583b 100644 --- a/lib/list_debug.c +++ b/lib/list_debug.c @@ -2,8 +2,7 @@ * Copyright 2006, Red Hat, Inc., Dave Jones * Released under the General Public License (GPL). * - * This file contains the linked list implementations for - * DEBUG_LIST. + * This file contains the linked list validation for DEBUG_LIST. */ #include <linux/export.h> @@ -13,33 +12,32 @@ #include <linux/rculist.h> /* - * Insert a new entry between two known consecutive entries. - * - * This is only for internal list manipulation where we know - * the prev/next entries already! + * Check that the data structures for the list manipulations are reasonably + * valid. Failures here indicate memory corruption (and possibly an exploit + * attempt). */ -void __list_add(struct list_head *new, - struct list_head *prev, - struct list_head *next) +bool __list_add_valid(struct list_head *new, struct list_head *prev, + struct list_head *next) { - WARN(next->prev != prev, - "list_add corruption. next->prev should be " - "prev (%p), but was %p. (next=%p).\n", - prev, next->prev, next); - WARN(prev->next != next, - "list_add corruption. prev->next should be " - "next (%p), but was %p. (prev=%p).\n", - next, prev->next, prev); - WARN(new == prev || new == next, - "list_add double add: new=%p, prev=%p, next=%p.\n", - new, prev, next); - next->prev = new; - new->next = next; - new->prev = prev; - WRITE_ONCE(prev->next, new); + if (unlikely(next->prev != prev)) { + WARN(1, "list_add corruption. next->prev should be prev (%p), but was %p. (next=%p).\n", + prev, next->prev, next); + return false; + } + if (unlikely(prev->next != next)) { + WARN(1, "list_add corruption. prev->next should be next (%p), but was %p. (prev=%p).\n", + next, prev->next, prev); + return false; + } + if (unlikely(new == prev || new == next)) { + WARN(1, "list_add double add: new=%p, prev=%p, next=%p.\n", + new, prev, next); + return false; + } + return true; } -EXPORT_SYMBOL(__list_add); +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__list_add_valid); void __list_del_entry(struct list_head *entry) { |