linux-kernel - Re: Getting rid of dynamic TASK

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: <CALCETrVFJN+ktqjGAMckVpUf3JA4_iJf2R1tXDG=WmwwwLEF-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 May 2016 09:45:34 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc:	Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
	Ruslan Kabatsayev <b7.10110111@...il.com>,
	X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Getting rid of dynamic TASK_SIZE (on x86, at least)

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 09:07:49AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Hi all-
>>
>> I'm trying to get rid of x86's dynamic TASK_SIZE and just redefine it
>> to TASK_SIZE_MAX.  So far, these are the TASK_SIZE users that actually
>> seem to care about the task in question:
>>
>> get_unmapped_area.  This is used by mmap, mremap, exec, uprobe XOL,
>> and maybe some other things.
>>
>>  - mmap, mremap, etc: IMO this should check in_compat_syscall, not
>> TIF_ADDR32.  If a 64-bit task does an explicit 32-bit mmap (using int
>> $0x80, for example), it should get a 32-bit address back.
>>
>>  - xol_add_vma: This one is weird: uprobes really is doing something
>> behind the task's back, and the addresses need to be consistent with
>> the address width.  I'm not quite sure what to do here.
>>
>>  - exec.  This wants to set up mappings that are appropriate for the new task.
>>
>> My inclination would be add a new 'limit' parameter to all the
>> get_unmapped_area variants and possible to vm_brk and friends and to
>> thus push the decision into the callers.  For the syscalls, we could
>> add:
>>
>> static inline unsigned long this_syscall_addr_limit(void) { return TASK_SIZE; }
>>
>> and override it on x86.
>>
>> I'm not super excited to write that patch, though...
>
> Andy, could you please highlight what's wrong with TASK_SIZE helper
> in first place? The idea behind is to clean up the code or there
> some real problem?

It's annoying and ugly.  It also makes the idea of doing 32-bit CRIU
restore by starting in 64-bit mode and switching to 32-bit more
complicated because it requires switching TASK_SIZE.

--Andy

-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC