linux-kernel - [PATCH 19/34] x86, pkeys: optimize fault handling in access

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: <20151204011450.A07593D5@viggo.jf.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 03 Dec 2015 17:14:50 -0800
From:	Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org, Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>,
	dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com
Subject: [PATCH 19/34] x86, pkeys: optimize fault handling in access_error()


From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>

We might not strictly have to make modifictions to
access_error() to check the VMA here.

If we do not, we will do this:
1. app sets VMA pkey to K
2. app touches a !present page
3. do_page_fault(), allocates and maps page, sets pte.pkey=K
4. return to userspace
5. touch instruction reexecutes, but triggers PF_PK
6. do PKEY signal

What happens with this patch applied:
1. app sets VMA pkey to K
2. app touches a !present page
3. do_page_fault() notices that K is inaccessible
4. do PKEY signal

We basically skip the fault that does an allocation.

So what this lets us do is protect areas from even being
*populated* unless it is accessible according to protection
keys.  That seems handy to me and makes protection keys work
more like an mprotect()'d mapping.

Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
---

 b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c |   15 +++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)

diff -puN arch/x86/mm/fault.c~pkeys-15-access_error arch/x86/mm/fault.c
--- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c~pkeys-15-access_error	2015-12-03 16:21:26.872727820 -0800
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c	2015-12-03 16:21:26.876728002 -0800
@@ -900,10 +900,16 @@ bad_area(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned
 static inline bool bad_area_access_from_pkeys(unsigned long error_code,
 		struct vm_area_struct *vma)
 {
+	/* This code is always called on the current mm */
+	int foreign = 0;
+
 	if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_OSPKE))
 		return false;
 	if (error_code & PF_PK)
 		return true;
+	/* this checks permission keys on the VMA: */
+	if (!arch_vma_access_permitted(vma, (error_code & PF_WRITE), foreign))
+		return true;
 	return false;
 }
 
@@ -1091,6 +1097,8 @@ int show_unhandled_signals = 1;
 static inline int
 access_error(unsigned long error_code, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
 {
+	/* This is only called for the current mm, so: */
+	int foreign = 0;
 	/*
 	 * Access or read was blocked by protection keys. We do
 	 * this check before any others because we do not want
@@ -1099,6 +1107,13 @@ access_error(unsigned long error_code, s
 	 */
 	if (error_code & PF_PK)
 		return 1;
+	/*
+	 * Make sure to check the VMA so that we do not perform
+	 * faults just to hit a PF_PK as soon as we fill in a
+	 * page.
+	 */
+	if (!arch_vma_access_permitted(vma, (error_code & PF_WRITE), foreign))
+		return 1;
 
 	if (error_code & PF_WRITE) {
 		/* write, present and write, not present: */
_
--
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/