linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 13/20] arm64: ilp32: share aarch32 syscall wrappers to ilp32

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:	Wed, 30 Dec 2015 20:29:05 +0300
From:	Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, <pinskia@...il.com>,
	<Prasun.Kapoor@...iumnetworks.com>, <schwab@...e.de>,
	<broonie@...nel.org>, <Nathan_Lynch@...tor.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <agraf@...e.de>,
	<klimov.linux@...il.com>, <jan.dakinevich@...il.com>,
	<joseph@...esourcery.com>, <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>,
	<bamvor.zhangjian@...wei.com>,
	<philipp.tomsich@...obroma-systems.com>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<christoph.muellner@...obroma-systems.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 13/20] arm64: ilp32: share aarch32 syscall wrappers to
 ilp32

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 09:41:54PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 December 2015, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > That means we have to set ARCH_PACK_STATFS64 in the arm64 header files
> > > though, and propagate the OABI alignment to arm64/ilp32 as well, rather
> > > than using the 88-byte version that every other 32-bit architecture
> > > except for x86-32 and arm32 has.
> > 
> > Yuri replied that for EABI glibc, sizeof(struct statfs64) is already 88.
> > If that's correct and the packing attribute is ignored by glibc, we
> > could drop ARCH_PACK_COMPAT_STATFS64 as well (OABI not supported by
> > arm64). But I would be slightly worried since glibc is not the only user
> > of the kernel ABI.
> 
> It looks like glibc has its own definition of 'struct statfs64', which
> is incompatible with the one in the kernel headers for ARM EABI.
> 
> However, there are other libc implementations besides glibc, and we
> can't assume that they all do it the same way, so we clearly have to
> keep using the wrapper for ARM EABI. For ARM64/ILP32, we are probably
> better off defining it the same way in kernel and libc without that
> wrapper.
> 
> > For ILP32, I think we can skip defining ARCH_PACK_STATFS64 (of course,
> > only if __ILP32__) and state that sizeof(struct statfs64) is 88
> > (unpacked). In which case we need the wrappers above to be able to reuse
> > the compat_sys_statfs64 code.
> > 
> > > Another option would be to set "#define __statfs_word __u64" and use
> > > the 64-bit statfs call, instead of compat_sys_statfs64, but that in turn
> > > requires special-casing statfs in libc.
> > 
> > I wouldn't go this route as we kind of agreed that ILP32 should look
> > like any other 32-bit ABI.
> 
> It's really tricky then: in order to support EABI binaries from a libc
> that uses the kernel headers with the OABI compatible definition, we
> must not copy the 88 byte structure to user space, because that would
> overwrite user space stack data, and that in turn means we have to set
> ARCH_PACK_COMPAT_STATFS64, but that in turn prevents us from using the
> generic 32-bit syscall ABI for the arm64/ilp32 fstatfs64 call. 
> 
> It seems that today, put_compat_statfs64() doesn't actually use
> the size argument, and it just copies the individual fields, which
> is fine either way. This means we could turn around the logic
> in the arm32 wrapper, remove ARCH_PACK_COMPAT_STATFS64, and make
> the ilp32 code call directly into compat_sys_fstatfs64(), but it
> would be a bit fragile, as we rely on put_compat_statfs64() not
> actually writing the padding fields that the native do_statfs64()
> writes. If someone changed them to both use copy_to_user, we'd
> silently introduce data corruption on rarely used libc implementations.
> 
> 	Arnd

So. For ilp32, the only wrapper left here, is compat_sys_mmap2_wrapper.
But this is workaroud, as comment tells:
        Note: off_4k (w5) is always in units of 4K. If we can't do the
        requested offset because it is not page-aligned, we return -EINVAL.

Not sure we should pull it to ILP32. If so, we can call sys_mmap_pgoff()
directly. And we don't need this patch at all therefore. Any throughts?

Yury.
--
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/