linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] arm64: untag user addresses in copy_from

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: <CAAeHK+xWV2RNuoOrgkLrQ973eV2r8xFOcrzHWVrQZz7XA2WGYA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 May 2018 17:29:04 +0200
From:   Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@....com>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Zi Yan <zi.yan@...rutgers.edu>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Jacob Bramley <Jacob.Bramley@....com>,
        Ruben Ayrapetyan <Ruben.Ayrapetyan@....com>,
        Lee Smith <Lee.Smith@....com>,
        Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@....com>,
        Evgeniy Stepanov <eugenis@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] arm64: untag user addresses in copy_from_user and others

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:47 PM, Catalin Marinas
<catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 08:53:12PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
>> @@ -238,12 +239,15 @@ static inline void uaccess_enable_not_uao(void)
>>  /*
>>   * Sanitise a uaccess pointer such that it becomes NULL if above the
>>   * current addr_limit.
>> + * Also untag user pointers that have the top byte tag set.
>>   */
>>  #define uaccess_mask_ptr(ptr) (__typeof__(ptr))__uaccess_mask_ptr(ptr)
>>  static inline void __user *__uaccess_mask_ptr(const void __user *ptr)
>>  {
>>       void __user *safe_ptr;
>>
>> +     ptr = untagged_addr(ptr);
>> +
>>       asm volatile(
>>       "       bics    xzr, %1, %2\n"
>>       "       csel    %0, %1, xzr, eq\n"
>
> First of all, passing a tagged user pointer throughout the kernel is
> safe with uaccess routines but not suitable for find_vma() etc.
>
> With this change, we may have an inconsistent behaviour on the tag
> masking, depending on whether the entry code uses __uaccess_mask_ptr()
> or not. We could preserve the tag with something like:
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
> index e66b0fca99c2..ed15bfcbd797 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
> @@ -244,10 +244,11 @@ static inline void __user *__uaccess_mask_ptr(const void __user *ptr)
>         void __user *safe_ptr;
>
>         asm volatile(
> -       "       bics    xzr, %1, %2\n"
> +       "       bics    xzr, %3, %2\n"
>         "       csel    %0, %1, xzr, eq\n"
>         : "=&r" (safe_ptr)
> -       : "r" (ptr), "r" (current_thread_info()->addr_limit)
> +       : "r" (ptr), "r" (current_thread_info()->addr_limit),
> +         "r" (untagged_addr(ptr))
>         : "cc");
>
>         csdb();

Just to make sure I understood this assembly snippet correctly, this
change will result in checking untagged address against addr_limit,
and returning the original tagged address if the check passes. Sure,
sounds good, I'll do that.