linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH for 4.18 3/5] rseq: uapi: declare 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 7 Jul 2018 16:06:45 +0100
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>,
        Steven 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 3/5] rseq: uapi: declare rseq_cs field as
 union, update includes

On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 12:56:58PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 12:38 PM Mathieu Desnoyers
> <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
> >
> > Should I change all 4 bytes __get_user()/__put_user() in kernel/rseq.c
> > for get_user()/put_user() to ensure consistency ?
> 
> Probably.
> 
> *If* this actually turns out to be somethinig that shows up on
> profiles, it's almost certainly going to be the STAC/CLAC instructions
> ("perf report" tends to report them as three one-byte nop's because
> that's how they look before instruction replacement).
> 
> And then it's not __get/put_user() that will improve things, but doing a
> 
>         user_access_begin();
> 
>         .. do unsafe_get/put_user() ..
> 
>         user_access_end();
> 
> that will improve performance.
> 
> But it is *very* seldom useful. We have it in a handful of places in
> the kernel, and the most noticeable one is
> lib/{strnlen,strncpy_from}_user.c

Also, __get_user() is probably going to become the same as get_user()
when I finish the Spectre v1 ARM mitigations, because there'll be no
point in __get_user() being any different.  For those mitigations,
we're going to have to check the pointer against the address limit
inside __get_user() and NULL it out, just like get_user() does, which
makes the whole distinction between the two completely pointless.

Is this not also the case on other architectures affected by Spectre
variant 1, hmm?

-- 
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 13.8Mbps down 630kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 13Mbps down 490kbps up