[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190523170026.nso2me5qnrrjbrdr@mbp>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 18:00:27 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: enh <enh@...gle.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@...gle.com>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...lanox.com>,
Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@....com>,
Alexander Deucher <Alexander.Deucher@....com>,
Christian Koenig <Christian.Koenig@....com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
Lee Smith <Lee.Smith@....com>,
Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@....com>,
Jacob Bramley <Jacob.Bramley@....com>,
Ruben Ayrapetyan <Ruben.Ayrapetyan@....com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@....com>,
Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 00/17] arm64: untag user pointers passed to the kernel
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 08:44:12AM -0700, enh wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 7:45 AM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 01:47:36PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > For userspace, how would a future binary choose TBI over MTE? If it's
> > > a library issue, we can't use an ELF bit, since the choice may be
> > > "late" after ELF load (this implies the need for a prctl().) If it's
> > > binary-only ("built with HWKASan") then an ELF bit seems sufficient.
> > > And without the marking, I'd expect the kernel to enforce MTE when
> > > there are high bits.
> >
> > The current plan is that a future binary issues a prctl(), after
> > checking the HWCAP_MTE bit (as I replied to Elliot, the MTE instructions
> > are not in the current NOP space). I'd expect this to be done by the
> > libc or dynamic loader under the assumption that the binaries it loads
> > do _not_ use the top pointer byte for anything else.
>
> yeah, it sounds like to support hwasan and MTE, the dynamic linker
> will need to not use either itself.
>
> > With hwasan compiled objects this gets more confusing (any ELF note
> > to identify them?).
>
> no, at the moment code that wants to know checks for the presence of
> __hwasan_init. (and bionic doesn't actually look at any ELF notes
> right now.) but we can always add something if we need to.
It's a userspace decision to make. In the kernel, we are proposing that
bionic calls a prctl() to enable MTE explicitly. It could first check
for the presence of __hwasan_init.
--
Catalin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists