Date:   Mon, 11 Feb 2019 12:32:55 -0800
From:   Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@...gle.com>
To:     Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@....com>
Cc:     Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        Chintan Pandya <cpandya@...eaurora.org>,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jacob Bramley <Jacob.Bramley@....com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Ruben Ayrapetyan <Ruben.Ayrapetyan@....com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
        Lee Smith <Lee.Smith@....com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] arm64 relaxed ABI

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:28 AM Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@....com> wrote:
>
> On 19/12/2018 12:52, Dave Martin wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 05:59:38PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 04:03:38PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 4:02 PM Catalin Marinas<catalin.marinas@....com>  wrote:
> >>>> The summary of our internal discussions (mostly between kernel
> >>>> developers) is that we can't properly describe a user ABI that covers
> >>>> future syscalls or syscall extensions while not all syscalls accept
> >>>> tagged pointers. So we tweaked the requirements slightly to only allow
> >>>> tagged pointers back into the kernel *if* the originating address is
> >>>> from an anonymous mmap() or below sbrk(0). This should cover some of the
> >>>> ioctls or getsockopt(TCP_ZEROCOPY_RECEIVE) where the user passes a
> >>>> pointer to a buffer obtained via mmap() on the device operations.
> >>>>
> >>>> (sorry for not being clear on what Vincenzo's proposal implies)
> >>> OK, I see. So I need to make the following changes to my patchset AFAIU.
> >>>
> >>> 1. Make sure that we only allow tagged user addresses that originate
> >>> from an anonymous mmap() or below sbrk(0). How exactly should this
> >>> check be performed?
> >> I don't think we should perform such checks. That's rather stating that
> >> the kernel only guarantees that the tagged pointers work if they
> >> originated from these memory ranges.
> > I concur.
> >
> > Really, the kernel should do the expected thing with all "non-weird"
> > memory.
> >
> > In lieu of a proper definition of "non-weird", I think we should have
> > some lists of things that are explicitly included, and also excluded:
> >
> > OK:
> >       kernel-allocated process stack
> >       brk area
> >       MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE
> >       MAP_PRIVATE mappings of /dev/zero
> >
> > Not OK:
> >       MAP_SHARED
> >       mmaps of non-memory-like devices
> >       mmaps of anything that is not a regular file
> >       the VDSO
> >       ...
> >
> > In general, userspace can tag memory that it "owns", and we do not assume
> > a transfer of ownership except in the "OK" list above.  Otherwise, it's
> > the kernel's memory, or the owner is simply not well defined.
>
> Agreed on the general idea: a process should be able to pass tagged pointers at the
> syscall interface, as long as they point to memory privately owned by the process. I
> think it would be possible to simplify the definition of "non-weird" memory by using
> only this "OK" list:
> - mmap() done by the process itself, where either:
>    * flags = MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS
>    * flags = MAP_PRIVATE and fd refers to a regular file or a well-defined list of
> device files (like /dev/zero)
> - brk() done by the process itself
> - Any memory mapped by the kernel in the new process's address space during execve(),
> with the same restrictions as above ([vdso]/[vvar] are therefore excluded)
>
> > I would also like to see advice for userspace developers, particularly
> > things like (strawman, please challenge!):
>
> To some extent, one could call me a userspace developer, so I'll try to help :)
>
> >   * Userspace should set tags at the point of allocation only.
>
> Yes, tags are only supposed to be set at the point of either allocation or
> deallocation/reallocation. However, allocators can in principle be nested, so an
> allocator could  take a region allocated by malloc() as input and subdivide it
> (changing tags in the process). That said, this suballocator must not free() that
> region until all the suballocations themselves have been freed (thereby restoring the
> tags initially set by malloc()).
>
> >   * If you don't know how an object was allocated, you cannot modify the
> >     tag, period.
>
> Agreed, allocators that tag memory can only operate on memory with a well-defined
> provenance (for instance anonymous mmap() or malloc()).
>
> >   * A single C object should be accessed using a single, fixed pointer tag
> >     throughout its entire lifetime.
>
> Agreed. Allocators themselves may need to be excluded though, depending on how they
> represent their managed memory.
>
> >   * Tags can be changed only when there are no outstanding pointers to
> >     the affected object or region that may be used to access the object
> >     or region (i.e., if the object were allocated from the C heap and
> >     is it safe to realloc() it, then it is safe to change the tag; for
> >     other types of allocation, analogous arguments can be applied).
>
> Tags can only be changed at the point of deallocation/reallocation. Pointers to the
> object become invalid and cannot be used after it has been deallocated; memory
> tagging allows to catch such invalid usage.
>
> >   * When the kernel dereferences a pointer on userspace's behalf, it
> >     shall behave equivalently to userspace dereferencing the same pointer,
> >     including use of the same tag (where passed by userspace).
> >
> >   * Where the pointer tag affects pointer dereference behaviour (i.e.,
> >     with hardware memory colouring) the kernel makes no guarantee to
> >     honour pointer tags correctly for every location a buffer based on a
> >     pointer passed by userspace to the kernel.
> >
> >     (This means for example that for a read(fd, buf, size), we can check
> >     the tag for a single arbitrary location in *(char (*)[size])buf
> >     before passing the buffer to get_user_pages().  Hopefully this could
> >     be done in get_user_pages() itself rather than hunting call sites.
> >     For userspace, it means that you're on your own if you ask the
> >     kernel to operate on a buffer than spans multiple, independently-
> >     allocated objects, or a deliberately striped single object.)
>
> I think both points are reasonable. It is very valuable for the kernel to access
> userspace memory using the user-provided tag, because it enables kernel accesses to
> be checked in the same way as user accesses, allowing to detect bugs that are
> potentially hard to find. For instance, if a pointer to an object is passed to the
> kernel after it has been deallocated, this is invalid and should be detected.
> However, you are absolutely right that the kernel cannot *guarantee* that such a
> check is carried out for the entire memory range (or in fact at all); it should be a
> best-effort approach.

It would also be valuable to narrow down the set of "relaxed" (i.e.
not tag-checking) syscalls as reasonably possible. We would want to
provide tag-checking userspace wrappers for any important calls that
are not checked in the kernel. Is it correct to assume that anything
that goes through copy_from_user  / copy_to_user is checked?

>
> >   * The kernel shall not extend the lifetime of user pointers in ways
> >     that are not clear from the specification of the syscall or
> >     interface to which the pointer is passed (and in any case shall not
> >     extend pointer lifetimes without good reason).
> >
> >     So no clever transparent caching between syscalls, unless it _really_
> >     is transparent in the presence of tags.
>
> Do you have any particular case in mind? If such caching is really valuable, it is
> always possible to access the object while ignoring the tag. For sure, the
> user-provided tag can only be used during the syscall handling itself, not
> asynchronously later on, unless otherwise specified.

For aio* operations it would be nice if the tag was checked at the
time of the actual userspace read/write, either instead of or in
addition to at the time of the system call.

>
> >   * For purposes other than dereference, the kernel shall accept any
> >     legitimately tagged pointer (according to the above rules) as
> >     identifying the associated memory location.
> >
> >     So, mprotect(some_page_aligned_object, ...); is valid irrespective
> >     of where page_aligned_object() came from.  There is no implicit
> >     derefence by the kernel here, hence no tag check.
> >
> >     The kernel does not guarantee to work correctly if the wrong tag
> >     is used, but there is not always a well-defined "right" tag, so
> >     we can't really guarantee to check it.  So a pointer derived by
> >     any reasonable means by userspace has to be treated as equally
> >     valid.
>
> This is a disputed point :) In my opinion, this is the the most reasonable approach.

Yes, it would be nice if the kernel explicitly promised, ex.
mprotect() over a range of differently tagged pages to be allowed
(i.e. address tag should be unchecked).


>
> Cheers,
> Kevin
>
> > We would need to get some cross-arch buy-in for this, otherwise core
> > maintainers might just refuse to maintain the necessary guarantees.
> >
> >
> >>> 2. Allow tagged addressed passed to memory syscalls (as long as (1) is
> >>> satisfied). Do I understand correctly that this means that I need to
> >>> locate all find_vma() callers outside of mm/ and fix them up as well?
> >> Yes (unless anyone as a better idea or objections to this approach).
> > Also, watch out for code that pokes about inside struct vma directly.
> >
> > I'm wondering, could we define an explicit type, say,
> >
> >       struct user_vaddr {
> >               unsigned long addr;
> >       };
> >
> > to replace the unsigned longs in struct vma the mm API?  This would
> > turn ad-hoc (unsigned long) casts into build breaks.  We could have
> > an explicit conversion functions, say,
> >
> >       struct user_vaddr __user_vaddr_unsafe(void __user *);
> >       void __user *__user_ptr_unsafe(struct user_vaddr);
> >
> > that we robotically insert in all the relevant places to mark
> > unaudited code.
> >
> > This allows us to keep the kernel buildable, while flagging things
> > that will need review.  We would also need to warn the mm folks to
> > reject any new code using these unsafe conversions.
> >
> > Of course, it would be a non-trivial effort...
> >
> >> BTW, I'll be off until the new year, so won't be able to follow up.
> > Cheers
> > ---Dave
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> > linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists