linux-kernel - Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

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: <20160512145402.GI11226@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 May 2016 15:54:03 +0100
From:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:	Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
Cc:	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
	arnd@...db.de, pinskia@...il.com, Prasun.Kapoor@...iumnetworks.com,
	Nathan_Lynch@...tor.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	agraf@...e.de, klimov.linux@...il.com, broonie@...nel.org,
	bamvor.zhangjian@...wei.com, joseph@...esourcery.com,
	schwab@...e.de, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	christoph.muellner@...obroma-systems.com
Subject: Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 05:34:15PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:20:16PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:07:35PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:44:31PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 02:35:34PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:20:00AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> > > > > > I debugged preadv02 and pwritev02 failures and found very weird bug.
> > > > > > Test passes {iovec_base = 0xffffffff, iovec_len = 64} as one element
> > > > > > of vector, and kernel reports successful read/write.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > There are 2 problems:
> > > > > > 1. How kernel allows such address to be passed to fs subsystem;
> > > > > > 2. How fs successes to read/write at non-mapped, and in fact non-user
> > > > > > address.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I don't know the answer on 2'nd question, and it might be something
> > > > > > generic. But I investigated first problem.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The problem is that compat_rw_copy_check_uvector() uses access_ok() to
> > > > > > validate user address, and on arm64 it ends up with checking buffer
> > > > > > end against current_thread_info()->addr_limit.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > current_thread_info()->addr_limit for ilp32, and most probably for
> > > > > > aarch32 is equal to aarch64 one, and so adress_ok() doesn't fail.
> > > > > > It happens because on thread creation we call flush_old_exec() to set 
> > > > > > addr_limit, and completely ignore compat mode there.
> > > 
> > > [...]
> > > 
> > > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/binfmt_elf32.c
> > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/binfmt_elf32.c
> > > > > > @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
> > > > > >  do {						\
> > > > > >  	clear_thread_flag(TIF_32BIT_AARCH64);	\
> > > > > >  	set_thread_flag(TIF_32BIT);		\
> > > > > > +	set_fs(TASK_SIZE_32);			\
> > > > > >  } while (0)
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >  #define COMPAT_ARCH_DLINFO
> > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/binfmt_ilp32.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/binfmt_ilp32.c
> > > > > > index a934fd4..a8599c6 100644
> > > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/binfmt_ilp32.c
> > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/binfmt_ilp32.c
> > > > > > @@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ static void cputime_to_compat_timeval(const cputime_t cputime,
> > > > > >  do {									\
> > > > > >  	set_thread_flag(TIF_32BIT_AARCH64);				\
> > > > > >  	clear_thread_flag(TIF_32BIT);					\
> > > > > > +	set_fs(TASK_SIZE_32);						\
> > > > > >  } while (0)
> > > > > 
> > > > > I don't think we need these two. AFAICT, flush_old_exec() takes care of
> > > > > setting the USER_DS for the new thread.
> > > > 
> > > > That's true, but USER_DS depends on personality which is not set yet
> > > > for new thread, as I wrote above. In fact, I tried correct USER_DS
> > > > only, and it doesn't work
> > > 
> > > Ah, it looks like load_elf_binary() sets the personality after
> > > flush_old_exec(). Looking at powerpc and x86, they set USER_DS to the
> > > maximum 64-bit task value, so they should have a similar issue with
> > > native 32-bit vs compat behaviour.
> > 
> > I think we have another problem. flush_old_exec() calls the arm64
> > flush_thread() where tls_thread_flush() checks for is_compat_task(). So
> > starting a 32-bit application from a 64-bit one not go on the correct
> > path.
> 
> As per now, all native, aarch32 and ilp32 tasks can exec() any
> binaries they need.

And that's correct.

> Are you think it's wrong? If so, how we coild run
> first compat application (maybe shell), it there are only lp64 tasks
> on the system?

What I meant is that we rely on flush_old_exec() to initialise the TLS
register for the compat task but it currently depends on what the parent
is. I think tls_thread_flush() should actually drop the is_compat_task()
thread and always initialise all the TLS registers.

-- 
Catalin