[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180316152319.963285633@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 16:23:01 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.9 38/86] nospec: Kill array_index_nospec_mask_check()
4.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
commit 1d91c1d2c80cb70e2e553845e278b87a960c04da upstream.
There are multiple problems with the dynamic sanity checking in
array_index_nospec_mask_check():
* It causes unnecessary overhead in the 32-bit case since integer sized
@index values will no longer cause the check to be compiled away like
in the 64-bit case.
* In the 32-bit case it may trigger with user controllable input when
the expectation is that should only trigger during development of new
kernel enabling.
* The macro reuses the input parameter in multiple locations which is
broken if someone passes an expression like 'index++' to
array_index_nospec().
Reported-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/151881604278.17395.6605847763178076520.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
include/linux/nospec.h | 22 +---------------------
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 21 deletions(-)
--- a/include/linux/nospec.h
+++ b/include/linux/nospec.h
@@ -30,26 +30,6 @@ static inline unsigned long array_index_
#endif
/*
- * Warn developers about inappropriate array_index_nospec() usage.
- *
- * Even if the CPU speculates past the WARN_ONCE branch, the
- * sign bit of @index is taken into account when generating the
- * mask.
- *
- * This warning is compiled out when the compiler can infer that
- * @index and @size are less than LONG_MAX.
- */
-#define array_index_mask_nospec_check(index, size) \
-({ \
- if (WARN_ONCE(index > LONG_MAX || size > LONG_MAX, \
- "array_index_nospec() limited to range of [0, LONG_MAX]\n")) \
- _mask = 0; \
- else \
- _mask = array_index_mask_nospec(index, size); \
- _mask; \
-})
-
-/*
* array_index_nospec - sanitize an array index after a bounds check
*
* For a code sequence like:
@@ -67,7 +47,7 @@ static inline unsigned long array_index_
({ \
typeof(index) _i = (index); \
typeof(size) _s = (size); \
- unsigned long _mask = array_index_mask_nospec_check(_i, _s); \
+ unsigned long _mask = array_index_mask_nospec(_i, _s); \
\
BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(_i) > sizeof(long)); \
BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(_s) > sizeof(long)); \
Powered by blists - more mailing lists