linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.14 161/189] x86/pkeys/selftests: Fix pkey exhaustion test off-by-one

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: <20180618081215.696074572@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:14:17 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michael Ellermen <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...rosoft.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.14 161/189] x86/pkeys/selftests: Fix pkey exhaustion test off-by-one

4.14-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>

[ Upstream commit f50b4878329ab61d8e05796f655adeb6f5fb57c6 ]

In our "exhaust all pkeys" test, we make sure that there
is the expected number available.  Turns out that the
test did not cover the execute-only key, but discussed
it anyway.  It did *not* discuss the test-allocated
key.

Now that we have a test for the mprotect(PROT_EXEC) case,
this off-by-one issue showed itself.  Correct the off-by-
one and add the explanation for the case we missed.

Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Michael Ellermen <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180509171350.E1656B95@viggo.jf.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...rosoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/x86/protection_keys.c |   13 ++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

--- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/protection_keys.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/protection_keys.c
@@ -1163,12 +1163,15 @@ void test_pkey_alloc_exhaust(int *ptr, u
 	pkey_assert(i < NR_PKEYS*2);
 
 	/*
-	 * There are 16 pkeys supported in hardware.  One is taken
-	 * up for the default (0) and another can be taken up by
-	 * an execute-only mapping.  Ensure that we can allocate
-	 * at least 14 (16-2).
+	 * There are 16 pkeys supported in hardware.  Three are
+	 * allocated by the time we get here:
+	 *   1. The default key (0)
+	 *   2. One possibly consumed by an execute-only mapping.
+	 *   3. One allocated by the test code and passed in via
+	 *      'pkey' to this function.
+	 * Ensure that we can allocate at least another 13 (16-3).
 	 */
-	pkey_assert(i >= NR_PKEYS-2);
+	pkey_assert(i >= NR_PKEYS-3);
 
 	for (i = 0; i < nr_allocated_pkeys; i++) {
 		err = sys_pkey_free(allocated_pkeys[i]);