linux-kernel - ia64 exceptions (Re: [RFC][CFT][PATCHSET v1] uaccess unification)

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: <20170405050507.GQ29622@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:05:08 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
Subject: ia64 exceptions (Re: [RFC][CFT][PATCHSET v1] uaccess unification)

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 06:57:06AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:

> And again, metag and ia64 parts are simply not there - both architectures
> zero-pad in __copy_from_user_inatomic() and that really needs fixing.
> In case of metag there's __copy_to_user() breakage as well, AFAICS, and
> I've been unable to find any documentation describing the architecture
> wrt exceptions, and that part is apparently fairly weird.  In case of
> ia64...  I can test mckinley side of things, but not the generic __copy_user()
> and ia64 is about as weird as it gets.  With no reliable emulator, at that...
> So these two are up to respective maintainers.

Speaking of ia64: copy_user.S contains the following oddity:
2:
        EX(.failure_in3,(p16) ld8 val1[0]=[src1],16)
(p16)   ld8 val2[0]=[src2],16

src1 is 16-byte aligned, src2 is src1 + 8.

What guarantees that we can't race with e.g. TLB shootdown from a thread on
another CPU, ending up with the second insn taking a fault and oopsing?

AFAICS, other places where we have such pairs of loads or stores (e.g.
EX(.ex_handler, (p16)   ld8     r34=[src0],16)
EK(.ex_handler, (p16)   ld8     r38=[src1],16)
in the memcpy_mck.S counterpart of that code) both have exception table
entries associated with them.

Is that one intentional and correct for some subtle reason, or is it a very
narrow race on the hardware nobody gives a damn anymore?  It is pre-mckinley
stuff, after all...