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: <CALCETrWS5YpRMh00tH3Lx6yUNhzSti3kpema8nwv-d-jUKbGaA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 May 2016 10:26:05 -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 10:05 AM, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 09:45:34AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Well, you know I'm not sure it's that annoying. It serves as it should
> for task limit. Sure we can add one more parameter into get-unmapped-addr
> but same time the task-size will be present in say page faulting code
> (the helper might be renamed but it will be here still).

Why should the page faulting code care at all what type of task it is?
 If there's a vma there, fault it in.  If there isn't, then don't.

> Same applies
> to arch_get_unmapped_area_topdown, should there be some argument
> passed instead of open-coded TASK_SIZE helper?
>
> Don't get me wrong please, just trying to figure out how many code
> places need to be patche if we start this procedure.
>
> As to starting restore in 64 bit and switch into 32 bit -- should
> not we simply scan for "current" memory map and test if all areas
> mapped belong to compat limit?

I don't see what's wrong with leaving a high vma around.  The task is
unlikely to use it, but, if the task does use it (via long jump, for
example), it'll worj.

> And that's all. (Sorry I didn't
> follow precisely on your and Dmitry's conversation so I quite
> probably missing something obvious here).

It's not all.  We'd need an API to allow the task to cause TASK_SIZE
to change from TASK_SIZE64 to TASK_SIZE32.  I don't want to add that
API because I think its sole purpose is to work around kernel
silliness, and I'd rather we just fixed the silliness.

--Andy