linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 12/20] arm64:ilp32: add sys_ilp32.c and a separate table (in entry.S) to use it

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:	Thu, 17 Dec 2015 21:10:26 +0100
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:	Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	pinskia@...il.com, Prasun.Kapoor@...iumnetworks.com,
	schwab@...e.de, broonie@...nel.org, Nathan_Lynch@...tor.com,
	agraf@...e.de, klimov.linux@...il.com,
	Andrew Pinski <Andrew.Pinski@...iumnetworks.com>,
	jan.dakinevich@...il.com, Andrew Pinski <apinski@...ium.com>,
	ddaney.cavm@...il.com, bamvor.zhangjian@...wei.com,
	philipp.tomsich@...obroma-systems.com, joseph@...esourcery.com,
	christoph.muellner@...obroma-systems.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 12/20] arm64:ilp32: add sys_ilp32.c and a separate table (in entry.S) to use it

On Thursday 17 December 2015 18:27:53 Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:42:38AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:

> > +#define compat_sys_lookup_dcookie      sys_lookup_dcookie
> > +#define compat_sys_pread64             sys_pread64
> > +#define compat_sys_pwrite64            sys_pwrite64
> > +#define compat_sys_readahead           sys_readahead
> > +#define compat_sys_shmat               sys_shmat
> 
> I wonder whether we need wrappers (actually, not only for these but
> sys_read etc.). These functions take either a pointer or a size_t
> argument which are 32-bit with ILP32 but treated as 64-bit by an LP64
> kernel. Can we guarantee that user space zeros the top 32-bit of the
> arguments passed here?

I'm pretty sure that is safe. I haven't read the calling conventions
specification for arm64 ilp32, but usually all function arguments are
passed as 64-bit registers with proper sign-extend or zero-extend.

Most other syscalls rely on this behavior too, not just the ones that
are being modified here.

> With compat/AArch32, this is guaranteed by the kernel since EL0 won't be
> able to touch the top part but here I'm not entirely sure. As long as
> user space used Wn registers for 32-bit types, we are probably fine (the
> architecture guarantees the top 32-bit zeroing following a MOV, LDR etc.
> instruction into a Wn register). We just need to mention this in the ABI
> document (ilp32.txt).

I think the aarch32 case is actually the hard one, because it has to
worry about explicitly sign-extending 32-bit arguments (signed int or
signed long) that might be negative, e.g. user space passes -1 
as 0xffffffff, which the kernel entry turns into 0x00000000ffffffff
when it should use 0xffffffffffffffff. The COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINEx
macros take care of this.

> > +
> > +#define compat_sys_open_by_handle_at   sys_open_by_handle_at
> > +#define compat_sys_openat              sys_openat
> 
> So using sys_openat() forces O_LARGEFILE and we don't have a problem
> with (f)truncate. We may have an issue with AArch32 compat though.

aarch32 uses the correct compat functions in asm/unistd32.h

	Arnd
--
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/