linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 9/9] sparc64: Add support for ADI (Application Data Integrity)

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

Date:   Wed, 30 Aug 2017 17:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     khalid.aziz@...cle.com
Cc:     anthony.yznaga@...cle.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
        corbet@....net, bob.picco@...cle.com, steven.sistare@...cle.com,
        pasha.tatashin@...cle.com, mike.kravetz@...cle.com,
        mingo@...nel.org, nitin.m.gupta@...cle.com,
        kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, tom.hromatka@...cle.com,
        eric.saint.etienne@...cle.com, allen.pais@...cle.com,
        cmetcalf@...lanox.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        geert@...ux-m68k.org, tklauser@...tanz.ch, atish.patra@...cle.com,
        vijay.ac.kumar@...cle.com, peterz@...radead.org, mhocko@...e.com,
        jack@...e.cz, lstoakes@...il.com, hughd@...gle.com,
        thomas.tai@...cle.com, paul.gortmaker@...driver.com,
        ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com, dave.jiang@...el.com,
        willy@...radead.org, ying.huang@...el.com, zhongjiang@...wei.com,
        minchan@...nel.org, vegard.nossum@...cle.com,
        imbrenda@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        aarcange@...hat.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, khalid@...ehiking.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 9/9] sparc64: Add support for ADI (Application Data
 Integrity)

From: Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 17:23:37 -0600

> That is an interesting idea. This would enable TSTATE_MCDE on all
> threads of a process as soon as one thread enables it. If we consider
> the case where the parent creates a shared memory area and spawns a
> bunch of threads. These threads access the shared memory without ADI
> enabled. Now one of the threads decides to enable ADI on the shared
> memory. As soon as it does that, we enable TSTATE_MCDE across all
> threads and since threads are all using the same TTE for the shared
> memory, every thread becomes subject to ADI verification. If one of
> the other threads was in the middle of accessing the shared memory, it
> will get a sigsegv. If we did not enable TSTATE_MCDE across all
> threads, it could have continued execution without fault. In other
> words, updating TSTATE_MCDE across all threads will eliminate the
> option of running some threads with ADI enabled and some not while
> accessing the same shared memory. This could be necessary at least for
> short periods of time before threads can communicate with each other
> and all switch to accessing shared memory with ADI enabled using same
> tag. Does that sound like a valid use case or am I off in the weeds
> here?

A threaded application needs to synchronize and properly orchestrate
access to shared memory.

When a change is made to a mappping, in this case setting ADI
attributes, it's being done for the address space not the thread.

And the address space is shared amongst threads.

Therefore ADI is not really a per-thread property but rather
a per-address-space property.