linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 10/12] x86, mpx: add prctl commands PR_MPX_ENABLE_MANAGEMENT, PR_MPX_DISABLE

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1410241710020.5308@nanos>
Date:	Fri, 24 Oct 2014 17:10:35 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Qiaowei Ren <qiaowei.ren@...el.com>
cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 10/12] x86, mpx: add prctl commands PR_MPX_ENABLE_MANAGEMENT,
 PR_MPX_DISABLE_MANAGEMENT

On Fri, 24 Oct 2014, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2014, Qiaowei Ren wrote:
> > +int mpx_enable_management(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > +{
> > +	struct mm_struct *mm = tsk->mm;
> > +	void __user *bd_base = MPX_INVALID_BOUNDS_DIR;
> 
> What's the point of initializing bd_base here. I had to look twice to
> figure out that it gets overwritten by task_get_bounds_dir()
> 
> > @@ -285,6 +285,7 @@ dotraplinkage void do_bounds(struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code)
> >  	struct xsave_struct *xsave_buf;
> >  	struct task_struct *tsk = current;
> >  	siginfo_t info;
> > +	int ret = 0;
> >  
> >  	prev_state = exception_enter();
> >  	if (notify_die(DIE_TRAP, "bounds", regs, error_code,
> > @@ -312,8 +313,35 @@ dotraplinkage void do_bounds(struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code)
> >  	 */
> >  	switch (status & MPX_BNDSTA_ERROR_CODE) {
> >  	case 2: /* Bound directory has invalid entry. */
> > -		if (do_mpx_bt_fault(xsave_buf))
> > +		down_write(&current->mm->mmap_sem);
> 
> The handling of mm->mmap_sem here is horrible. The only reason why you
> want to hold mmap_sem write locked in the first place is that you want
> to cover the allocation and the mm->bd_addr check.
> 
> I think it's wrong to tie this to mmap_sem in the first place. If MPX
> is enabled then you should have mm->bd_addr and an explicit mutex to
> protect it.
> 
> So the logic would look like this:
> 
>    mutex_lock(&mm->bd_mutex);
>    if (!kernel_managed(mm))
>       do_trap();
>    else if (do_mpx_bt_fault())
>       force_sig();
>    mutex_unlock(&mm->bd_mutex);
>    
> No tricks with mmap_sem, no special return value handling. Straight
> forward code instead of a convoluted and error prone mess.

After thinking about the deallocation issue, this would be mm->bd_sem.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/