linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] x86: Verify access

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: <20161122193720.GA3045@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 22 Nov 2016 20:37:20 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] x86: Verify access_ok() context

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 09:28:01AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> > +#define access_ok(type, addr, size)                                    \
> > +({                                                                     \
> > +       WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_task());                                       \
> 
> Should this be guarded by some debug option?  This may hurt
> performance on production systems quite a bit.

I suspected something like that; any suitable CONFIG come to mind? I'm
somewhat reluctant to create yet another one for this.

CONFIG_DEBUG_VM seems somehow inappropriate.

> For what it's worth, I think ARM recently started saving the address
> limit and resetting it to USER_DS on NMI entry.

Up to them of course, but doing less on interrupt entry/exit seems
better.