linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH for 4.18] rseq: use __u64 for rseq

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: <459661281.10865.1530580742205.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date:   Mon, 2 Jul 2018 21:19:02 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
        Chris Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>,
        rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH for 4.18] rseq: use __u64 for rseq_cs fields,
 validate user inputs

----- On Jul 2, 2018, at 7:37 PM, Andy Lutomirski luto@...capital.net wrote:

>> On Jul 2, 2018, at 4:22 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> ----- On Jul 2, 2018, at 7:16 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers
>> mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com wrote:
>> 
>>> ----- On Jul 2, 2018, at 7:06 PM, Linus Torvalds torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 4:00 PM Mathieu Desnoyers
>>>> <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Unfortunately, that rseq->rseq_cs field needs to be updated by user-space
>>>>> with single-copy atomicity. Therefore, we want 32-bit user-space to initialize
>>>>> the padding with 0, and only update the low bits with single-copy atomicity.
>>>> 
>>>> Well... It's actually still single-copy atomicity as a 64-bit value.
>>>> 
>>>> Why? Because it doesn't matter how you write the upper bits. You'll be
>>>> writing the same value to them (zero) anyway.
>>>> 
>>>> So who cares if the write ends up being two instructions, because the
>>>> write to the upper bits doesn't actually *do* anything.
>>>> 
>>>> Hmm?
>>> 
>>> Are there any kind of guarantees that a __u64 update on a 32-bit architecture
>>> won't be torn into something daft like byte-per-byte stores when performed
>>> from C code ?
>>> 
>>> I don't worry whether the upper bits get updated or how, but I really care
>>> about not having store tearing of the low bits update.
>> 
>> For the records, most updates of those low bits are done in assembly
>> from critical sections, for which we control exactly how the update is
>> performed.
>> 
>> However, there is one helper function in user-space that updates that value
>> from C through a volatile store, e.g.:
>> 
>> static inline void rseq_prepare_unload(void)
>> {
>>        __rseq_abi.rseq_cs = 0;
>> }
> 
> How about making the field be:
> 
> union {
> __u64 rseq_cs;
> struct {
>   __u32 rseq_cs_low;
>   __u32 rseq_cs_high;
> };
> };
> 
> 32-bit user code that cares about performance can just write to rseq_cs_low
> because it already knows that rseq_cs_high == 0.
> 
> The header could even supply a static inline helper write_rseq_cs() that
> atomically writes a pointer and just does the right thing for 64-bit, for
> 32-bit BE, and for 32-bit LE.
> 
> I think the union really is needed because we can’t rely on user code being
> built with -fno-strict-aliasing.  Or the helper could use inline asm.
> 
> Anyway, the point is that we get optimal code generation (a single instruction
> write of the correct number of bits) without any compat magic in the kernel.

That works for me! Any objection from anyone else for this approach ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Mathieu
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Mathieu
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Mathieu Desnoyers
>>> EfficiOS Inc.
>>> http://www.efficios.com
>> 
>> --
>> Mathieu Desnoyers
>> EfficiOS Inc.
> > http://www.efficios.com

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com