linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/31 v2] PTI support for x86

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:   Thu, 22 Feb 2018 12:18:02 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mark D Rustad <mrustad@...il.com>,
        Adam Borowski <kilobyte@...band.pl>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
        Eduardo Valentin <eduval@...zon.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        "Liguori, Anthony" <aliguori@...zon.com>,
        Daniel Gruss <daniel.gruss@...k.tugraz.at>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/31 v2] PTI support for x86_32

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:10 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 05:59:34PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:54 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >> > > IPSEC doesn't work with a 64bit kernel and 32bit userspace right now.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Back in 2015 someone started to work on that, and properly marked that
>> >> > > the kernel could not handle this with commit 74005991b78a ("xfrm: Do not
>> >> > > parse 32bits compiled xfrm netlink msg on 64bits host")
>> >> > >
>> >> > > This is starting to be hit by some Android systems that are moving
>> >> > > (yeah, slowly) to 4.4 :(
>> >> >
>> >> > Does anybody have test-programs/harnesses for this?
>> >>
>> >> Lorenzo (now on the To: line), is the one that I think is looking into
>> >> this, and should have some sort of test for it.  Lorenzo?
>> >
>> > Sorry for the late reply here. The issue is that the xfrm uapi structs
>> > don't specify padding at the end, so they're a different size on
>> > 32-bit and 64-bit archs. This by itself would be fine, as the kernel
>> > could just ignore the (lack of) padding. But some of these structs
>> > contain others (e.g., xfrm_userspi_info contains xfrm_usersa_info),
>> > and in that case the whole layout after the contained struct is
>> > different.
>>
>> So this is x86 specific then and it already works correctly on all
>> other architectures (especially arm64 Android), right?
>
> Why is this an x86-specific issue?  I think people have noticed this
> with ARM systems given that the original bug report I saw was for an
> ARM Android-based system that had a 64bit kernel and 32bit userspace.

The patch Lorenzo linked to is only for x86, it addresses the fact that
the padding at the end of xfrm_usersa_info differs between 32-bit x86
and all other architectures because of the x86 specific quirk that u64
variables have 32-bit alignment.

xfrm_usersa_info should have the exact same layout on arm32, arm64
and x86_64.

      Arnd