[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAeHK+yqWKTdTG+ymZ2-5XKiDANV+fmUjnQkRy-5tpgphuLJRA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 17:05:57 +0200
From: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Chintan Pandya <cpandya@...eaurora.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 v4 0/7] arm64: untag user pointers passed to the kernel
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Catalin Marinas
<catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
> Hi Andrey,
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 02:47:50PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com> wrote:
>> > arm64 has a feature called Top Byte Ignore, which allows to embed pointer
>> > tags into the top byte of each pointer. Userspace programs (such as
>> > HWASan, a memory debugging tool [1]) might use this feature and pass
>> > tagged user pointers to the kernel through syscalls or other interfaces.
>> >
>> > This patch makes a few of the kernel interfaces accept tagged user
>> > pointers. The kernel is already able to handle user faults with tagged
>> > pointers and has the untagged_addr macro, which this patchset reuses.
>> >
>> > We're not trying to cover all possible ways the kernel accepts user
>> > pointers in one patchset, so this one should be considered as a start.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> > [1] http://clang.llvm.org/docs/HardwareAssistedAddressSanitizerDesign.html
>>
>> Is there anything I should do to move forward with this?
>>
>> I've received zero replies to this patch set (v3 and v4) over the last
>> month.
>
> The patches in this series look fine but my concern is that they are not
> sufficient and we don't have (yet?) a way to identify where such
> annotations are required. You even say in patch 6 that this is "some
> initial work for supporting non-zero address tags passed to the kernel".
> Unfortunately, merging (or relaxing) an ABI without a clear picture is
> not really feasible.
>
> While I support this work, as a maintainer I'd like to understand
> whether we'd be in a continuous chase of ABI breaks with every kernel
> release or we have a better way to identify potential issues. Is there
> any way to statically analyse conversions from __user ptr to long for
> example? Or, could we get the compiler to do this for us?
OK, got it, I'll try to figure out a way to find these conversions.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists