linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH for 4.18 1/2] rseq: validate rseq_cs fields are < TASK

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Fri, 29 Jun 2018 07:02:04 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>, joelaf@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH for 4.18 1/2] rseq: validate rseq_cs fields are < TASK_SIZE

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 6:08 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 28, 2018, at 5:18 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Make it do
> >
> >        if (rseq_cs->abort_ip != (unsigned long)rseq_cs->abort_ip)
> >                return -EINVAL;
> >
> > at abort time.
>
> You sure?  Because, unless I remember wrong, a 32-bit user program on a 64-bit kernel will actually work at least most of the time even if high bits are set.

Sure.

If you run a 32-bit binary on a 64-bit kernel,. you will have access
to the 0xc0000000 - 0xffffffff area that you wouldn't have had access
to if it ran on a 32-bit kernel.

But exactly *because* you have access to that area, those addresses
are actually valid addresses for the 32-bit case, so they shouldn't be
considered bad. They can't happen on a native 32-bit kerne, but a
32-bit program doesn't even care. If it has user memory mapped in that
area, it should work.

And if it *doesn't* have user memory mapped in that area, then it will
fail when the trying to execute the (non-existent) abort sequence.

After all, depending on configuration, a native 32-bit kernel might
limit user space even more (ie some vendors had a 2G:2G split instead
of the traditional 3G:1G split.

Was that the case you were thinking of, or was it something else?

              Linus