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: <9E0BE1322F2F2246BD820DA9FC397ADE0180ED65@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 27 Oct 2014 02:17:58 +0000
From:	"Ren, Qiaowei" <qiaowei.ren@...el.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mips@...ux-mips.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 2014-10-24, 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()
> 

I just want to put task_get_bounds_dir() outside mm->mmap_sem holding.

>> @@ -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.
> 
> Hmm?
> 
I guess this is a good solution. If so, new field 'bd_sem' have to be added into struct mm_struct.

Thanks,
Qiaowei
--
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/