linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v14 06/14] arch/x86: enable task isolation functionality

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: <ed7f5430-597b-063e-fe6a-1f8828d5e099@mellanox.com>
Date:	Wed, 10 Aug 2016 15:40:13 -0400
From:	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	Gilad Ben Yossef <giladb@...lanox.com>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, "Tejun Heo" <tj@...nel.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Francis Giraldeau <francis.giraldeau@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 06/14] arch/x86: enable task isolation functionality

On 8/10/2016 3:17 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Aug 10, 2016 5:30 PM, "Chris Metcalf" <cmetcalf@...lanox.com> wrote:
>> On 8/10/2016 3:52 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Aug 9, 2016 11:30 PM, "Chris Metcalf" <cmetcalf@...lanox.com> wrote:
>>> @@ -91,6 +92,15 @@ static long syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>>           if (emulated)
>>>                   return -1L;
>>>
>>> +       /* In isolation mode, we may prevent the syscall from running. */
>>> +       if (work & _TIF_TASK_ISOLATION) {
>>> +               if (task_isolation_syscall(regs->orig_ax) == -1) {
>>> +                       regs->orig_ax = -1;
>>> +                       return 0;
>>> +               }
>>> +               work &= ~_TIF_TASK_ISOLATION;
>>> +       }
>>> +
>>> What is this?  It's not mentioned in the changelog.  It seems
>>> nonsensical to me.  If nothing else, you forgot to update regs->ax,
>>> but I don't even know what you're trying to do.
>>
>> It's mentioned in the changelog as "Fixes a bug in x86 syscall_trace_enter()
>> [seen by Francis Giraldeau]."  To be fair, I didn't hear back from Francis, and
>> you're right, this doesn't look like it makes any sense now.  (I've added him
>> to the cc's on this email; for this series I had just put him on the cover letter.)
>>
>> I modeled this code on a snippet from the old two-phase syscall entry work:
>>
>>                 if (ret == SECCOMP_PHASE1_SKIP) {
>>                         regs->orig_ax = -1;
>>                         ret = 0;
>>                 }
>>
>> You got rid of this during the 4.7-rc series, but my code above was at least
>> plausibly valid until then :-)
>>
>> Regardless, I assume that the right thing for that condition to do now when
>> it triggers is to set regs->ax = -ENOSYS and return -1L?  I'll update the
>> git repository with that in any case.
> regs->ax will already be -ENOSYS unless something changed it

Right, I see that now in entry_SYSCALL_64_after_swapgs.  Good.

> but I'm
> not sure what this code is trying to do.  Is the idea that
> task_isolation_syscall might enqueue a signal and you want to deliver
> it without processing the syscall?  If so, a comment would be nice.
> You could even WARN_ON(!signal_pending()).

If you are in task isolation mode (and you haven't also requested NOSIG),
then attempting a system call fails, and you get a signal delivered.  You
convinced me that failing the syscall was the thing to do back here:

https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CALCETrUrc_LJyLJLHefSDYagCrNqqzKuknr6uLgVXnPW8PmZKw@mail.gmail.com

>>>>    #ifdef CONFIG_SECCOMP
>>>>           /*
>>>>            * Do seccomp after ptrace, to catch any tracer changes.
>>>> @@ -136,7 +146,7 @@ static long syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>>>
>>>>    #define EXIT_TO_USERMODE_LOOP_FLAGS                            \
>>>>           (_TIF_SIGPENDING | _TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME | _TIF_UPROBE |   \
>>>> -        _TIF_NEED_RESCHED | _TIF_USER_RETURN_NOTIFY)
>>>> +        _TIF_NEED_RESCHED | _TIF_USER_RETURN_NOTIFY | _TIF_TASK_ISOLATION)
>>>>
>>> Where are you updating the conditions to force use of the slow path?
>>> (That's _TIF_ALLWORK_MASK.)
>>
>> Whenever _TIF_TASK_ISOLATION is set, _TIF_NOHZ is also set.
> OK, but why not decouple it a bit and add it to the mask?  I keep
> meaning to add a BUILD_BUG_ON checking for bits in
> EXIT_TO_USERMODE_LOOP_FLAGS that aren't in the appropriate slow path
> masks.

That does seem reasonable; I'll make the change.

-- 
Chris Metcalf, Mellanox Technologies
http://www.mellanox.com