linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 03/11] task_isolation: support PR_TASK_ISOLATION

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:	Mon, 28 Sep 2015 15:38:28 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>
Cc:	Gilad Ben Yossef <giladb@...hip.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 03/11] task_isolation: support PR_TASK_ISOLATION_STRICT mode

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com> wrote:
> On 09/28/2015 04:51 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>
>>> @@ -35,8 +36,12 @@ static inline enum ctx_state exception_enter(void)
>>>                  return 0;
>>>
>>>          prev_ctx = this_cpu_read(context_tracking.state);
>>> -       if (prev_ctx != CONTEXT_KERNEL)
>>> -               context_tracking_exit(prev_ctx);
>>> +       if (prev_ctx != CONTEXT_KERNEL) {
>>> +               if (context_tracking_exit(prev_ctx)) {
>>> +                       if (task_isolation_strict())
>>> +                               task_isolation_exception();
>>> +               }
>>> +       }
>>>
>>>          return prev_ctx;
>>>   }
>>
>> x86 does not promise to call this function.  In fact, x86 is rather
>> likely to stop ever calling this function in the reasonably near
>> future.
>
>
> Yes, in which case we'd have to do it the same way we are doing
> it for arm64 (see patch 09/11), by calling task_isolation_exception()
> explicitly from within the relevant exception handlers.  If we start
> doing that, it's probably worth wrapping up the logic into a single
> inline function to keep the added code short and sweet.
>
> If in fact this might happen in the short term, it might be a good
> idea to hook the individual exception handlers in x86 now, and not
> hook the exception_enter() mechanism at all.

It's already like that in Linus' tree.

FWIW, most of those exception handlers send signals, so it might pay
to do it in notify_die or die instead.

>
>>> --- a/kernel/context_tracking.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/context_tracking.c
>>> @@ -144,15 +144,16 @@ NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(context_tracking_user_enter);
>>>    * This call supports re-entrancy. This way it can be called from any
>>> exception
>>>    * handler without needing to know if we came from userspace or not.
>>>    */
>>> -void context_tracking_exit(enum ctx_state state)
>>> +bool context_tracking_exit(enum ctx_state state)
>>
>> This needs clear documentation of what the return value means.
>
>
> Added:
>
>  * Return: if called with state == CONTEXT_USER, the function returns
>  * true if we were in fact previously in user mode.

This should note that it only returns true if context tracking is on.

>>> +void task_isolation_exception(void)
>>> +{
>>> +       pr_warn("%s/%d: task_isolation strict mode violated by
>>> exception\n",
>>> +               current->comm, current->pid);
>>> +       kill_task_isolation_strict_task();
>>> +}
>>
>> Should this say what exception?
>
>
> I could modify it to take a string argument (and then use it for
> the arm64 case at least).  For the exception_enter() caller, we actually
> don't have the information available to pass down, and it would
> be hard to get it.

For x86, the relevant info might be the actual hw error number
(error_code, which makes it into die) or the signal.  If we send a
death signal, then reporting the error number the usual way might make
sense.

--Andy
--
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/