linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv6 4/5] x86/mm: check in_compat_syscall() instead TIF_ADDR32 for mmap(MAP

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: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1703131446410.3558@nanos>
Date:   Mon, 13 Mar 2017 14:47:14 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@...tuozzo.com>
cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 0x7f454c46@...il.com,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 4/5] x86/mm: check in_compat_syscall() instead TIF_ADDR32
 for mmap(MAP_32BIT)

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> On 03/13/2017 12:39 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Mar 2017, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> > 
> > > Result of mmap() calls with MAP_32BIT flag at this moment depends
> > > on thread flag TIF_ADDR32, which is set during exec() for 32-bit apps.
> > > It's broken as the behavior of mmap() shouldn't depend on exec-ed
> > > application's bitness. Instead, it should check the bitness of mmap()
> > > syscall.
> > > How it worked before:
> > > o for 32-bit compatible binaries it is completely ignored. Which was
> > > fine when there were one mmap_base, computed for 32-bit syscalls.
> > > After introducing mmap_compat_base 64-bit syscalls do use computed
> > > for 64-bit syscalls mmap_base, which means that we can allocate 64-bit
> > > address with 64-bit syscall in application launched from 32-bit
> > > compatible binary. And ignoring this flag is not expected behavior.
> > 
> > Well, the real question here is, whether we should allow 32bit applications
> > to obtain 64bit mappings at all. We can very well force 32bit applications
> > into the 4GB address space as it was before your mmap base splitup and be
> > done with it.
> 
> Hmm, yes, we could restrict 32bit applications to 32bit mappings only.
> But the approach which I tried to follow in the patches set, it was do
> not base the logic on the bitness of launched applications
> (native/compat) - only base on bitness of the performing syscall.
> The idea was suggested by Andy and I made mmap() logic here independent
> from original application's bitness.
> 
> It also seems to me simpler:
> if 32-bit application wants to allocate 64-bit mapping, it should
> long-jump with 64-bit segment descriptor and do `syscall` instruction
> for 64-bit syscall entry path. So, in my point of view after this dance
> the application does not differ much from native 64-bit binary and can
> have 64-bit address mapping.

Works for me, but it lacks documentation .....

Thanks,

	tglx