linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARC: uaccess: get_user to zero out dest in cause of fault

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:   Sat, 20 Aug 2016 17:45:00 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>
Cc:     Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARC: uaccess: get_user to zero out dest in cause of fault

On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Interesting...  BTW, how's this in the "really vile tricks" department?
>
>         if (!uaccess_begin())
>                 goto fail;

So I slightly considered it, because gcc actually has support for that
kind of behavior thanks to setjmp/longjmp (and yes, the compiler
actually needs to know about the magic "this code can be entered a
second time from elsewhere" - it _used_ to be purely a library thing
back in the days of stupid compilers, but no more).

And I'm not saying it's wrong, but I'm not a huge fan of
setjmp/longjmp. Afaik it tends to make gcc generate potentially much
worse code in the function that uses setjmp.

That said, you have a really strong argument that I hadn't even thought about:

> AFAICS, it should avoid the problems with asm goto, right?

Yes. That was something I never even thought about. I just thought
"asm goto has some limitations, but they aren't _fundamental_, so
hopefully they get fixed". But they may not be fundamental, but it
will take a long time. If ever.

And you're right, using setjmp semantics would avoid all that and
"just work". Even for "get_user()" that needs to return a value.

Hmm.

You have to save the stack pointer at the setjmp point too. And there
might be other architecture-specific ABI rules for that. But you're
right, it might be worth it.

I *would* be a bit worried about code generation issues.
setjmp/longjmp is so seldom used that it's one of those things where
it might be best to verify with some gcc person that it doesn't cause
huge code-gen problems.

Adding Jakub just to check: Jakub, would a setjump/longjump kind of
interface for exception handling going to cause us problems
(performance or correctness) with gcc?

            Linus