linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v3 08/19] arch: um: add shim to trap to allow installing a fault catcher for tests

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: <CAFd5g45+MAVaSW8HN9x57Y8Um=TV1Oa=-K8yExPBS-4KjLyciQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Dec 2018 15:34:57 -0800
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     mcgrof@...nel.org
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>, shuah@...nel.org,
        Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>, mpe@...erman.id.au,
        joe@...ches.com, brakmo@...com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        Tim.Bird@...y.com, khilman@...libre.com,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        jdike@...toit.com, richard@....at, linux-um@...ts.infradead.org,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        dan.j.williams@...el.com, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
        kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Knut Omang <knut.omang@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 08/19] arch: um: add shim to trap to allow installing a
 fault catcher for tests

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 7:34 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:36:25AM -0800, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/um/kernel/trap.c b/arch/um/kernel/trap.c
> > index cced829460427..bf90e678b3d71 100644
> > --- a/arch/um/kernel/trap.c
> > +++ b/arch/um/kernel/trap.c
> > @@ -201,6 +201,12 @@ void segv_handler(int sig, struct siginfo *unused_si, struct uml_pt_regs *regs)
> >       segv(*fi, UPT_IP(regs), UPT_IS_USER(regs), regs);
> >  }
> >
> > +static void segv_run_catcher(jmp_buf *catcher, void *fault_addr)
> > +{
> > +     current->thread.fault_addr = fault_addr;
> > +     UML_LONGJMP(catcher, 1);
> > +}
> > +
> >  /*
> >   * We give a *copy* of the faultinfo in the regs to segv.
> >   * This must be done, since nesting SEGVs could overwrite
> > @@ -219,7 +225,10 @@ unsigned long segv(struct faultinfo fi, unsigned long ip, int is_user,
> >       if (!is_user && regs)
> >               current->thread.segv_regs = container_of(regs, struct pt_regs, regs);
> >
> > -     if (!is_user && (address >= start_vm) && (address < end_vm)) {
> > +     catcher = current->thread.fault_catcher;
>
> This and..
>
> > +     if (catcher && current->thread.is_running_test)
> > +             segv_run_catcher(catcher, (void *) address);
> > +     else if (!is_user && (address >= start_vm) && (address < end_vm)) {
> >               flush_tlb_kernel_vm();
> >               goto out;
> >       }
>
> *not this*

I don't understand. Are you saying the previous block of code is good
and this one is bad?

>
> > @@ -246,12 +255,10 @@ unsigned long segv(struct faultinfo fi, unsigned long ip, int is_user,
> >               address = 0;
> >       }
> >
> > -     catcher = current->thread.fault_catcher;
> >       if (!err)
> >               goto out;
> >       else if (catcher != NULL) {
> > -             current->thread.fault_addr = (void *) address;
> > -             UML_LONGJMP(catcher, 1);
> > +             segv_run_catcher(catcher, (void *) address);
> >       }
> >       else if (current->thread.fault_addr != NULL)
> >               panic("fault_addr set but no fault catcher");
>
> But with this seems one atomic change which should be submitted
> separately, its just a helper. Think it would make the actual
> change needed easier to review, ie, your needed changes would
> be smaller and clearer for what you need.

Are you suggesting that I pull out the bits needed to implement abort
in the next patch and squash it into this one?