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  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:   Thu, 31 Aug 2017 11:43:53 +0200
From:   Juerg Haefliger <juerg.haefliger@...onical.com>
To:     Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ker.com>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
        Marco Benatto <marco.antonio.780@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH v5 04/10] arm64: Add __flush_tlb_one()

On 08/30/2017 06:47 PM, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 07:31:25AM +0200, Juerg Haefliger wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 08/23/2017 07:04 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:58:42AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
>>>> Hi Mark,
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:50:47PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>>>> That said, is there any reason not to use flush_tlb_kernel_range()
>>>>> directly?
>>>>
>>>> So it turns out that there is a difference between __flush_tlb_one() and
>>>> flush_tlb_kernel_range() on x86: flush_tlb_kernel_range() flushes all the TLBs
>>>> via on_each_cpu(), where as __flush_tlb_one() only flushes the local TLB (which
>>>> I think is enough here).
>>>
>>> That sounds suspicious; I don't think that __flush_tlb_one() is
>>> sufficient.
>>>
>>> If you only do local TLB maintenance, then the page is left accessible
>>> to other CPUs via the (stale) kernel mappings. i.e. the page isn't
>>> exclusively mapped by userspace.
>>
>> We flush all CPUs to get rid of stale entries when a new page is
>> allocated to userspace that was previously allocated to the kernel.
>> Is that the scenario you were thinking of?
> 
> I think there are two cases, the one you describe above, where the
> pages are first allocated, and a second one, where e.g. the pages are
> mapped into the kernel because of DMA or whatever. In the case you
> describe above, I think we're doing the right thing (which is why my
> test worked correctly, because it tested this case).
> 
> In the second case, when the pages are unmapped (i.e. the kernel is
> done doing DMA), do we need to flush the other CPUs TLBs? I think the
> current code is not quite correct, because if multiple tasks (CPUs)
> map the pages, only the TLB of the last one is flushed when the
> mapping is cleared, because the tlb is only flushed when ->mapcount
> drops to zero, leaving stale entries in the other TLBs. It's not clear
> to me what to do about this case.

For this to happen, multiple CPUs need to have the same userspace page
mapped at the same time. Is this a valid scenario?

...Juerg


> Thoughts?
> 
> Tycho
> 
>> ...Juerg
>>
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mark.
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> 



Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (846 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists