linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: add alignment fault hanling

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:28:46 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	james.morse@....com, salyzyn@...roid.com,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"vladimir.murzin@....com" <vladimir.murzin@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
	"riandrews@...roid.com" <riandrews@...roid.com>,
	Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
	"Dave.Martin@....com" <Dave.Martin@....com>,
	EunTaik Lee <eun.taik.lee@...sung.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"suzuki.poulose@....com" <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: add alignment fault hanling

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Feb 16, 2016 1:31 PM, "Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> but what happens to the read if the page isn't present?
>> or is execute-only or .. or ..
>
> If we actually get a fault and handle the exception (not handling the
> exception was the problem on arm), the exception code will just cut off the
> pathname at the page boundary.
>
> So it will see the accessible part, and get zeroes for the inaccessible one.

Actually, looking closer, we only do that for the kernel case (where
pagealloc-debug can cause the unaligned path component in *kernel*
space to trap).

I misremembered because I considered doing it for user accesses too,
but as Catalin correctly says, there we don't actually end up being
that clever, and we just fall back to byte-at-a-time. Which means that
we do get the exact EFAULT behavior even though I'm not 100% convinced
we need to.

See the use of "load_unaligned_zeropad()"  (in the dcache handling) vs
just "get_user()" (in strncpy_from_user()).

The fault case doesn't actually ever happen in practice.

The IS_UNALIGNED() case (on architectures with inefficient unaligned
handling), which also falls back to the byte-at-a-time model, is
likely a much bigger problem. They probably need their own strncpy if
they care about performance. But the common architectures all happily
do efficient unaligneds these days.

             Linus