linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/16] mm: use untagged_addr() for get_user_pages

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: <20190621155415.GU19891@ziepe.ca>
Date:   Fri, 21 Jun 2019 12:54:15 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To:     Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
        James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
        sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/16] mm: use untagged_addr() for get_user_pages_fast
 addresses

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 09:35:11AM -0600, Khalid Aziz wrote:
> On 6/21/19 7:39 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 04:40:47PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >> This will allow sparc64 to override its ADI tags for
> >> get_user_pages and get_user_pages_fast.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> >>  mm/gup.c | 4 ++--
> >>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
> >> index ddde097cf9e4..6bb521db67ec 100644
> >> +++ b/mm/gup.c
> >> @@ -2146,7 +2146,7 @@ int __get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages, int write,
> >>  	unsigned long flags;
> >>  	int nr = 0;
> >>  
> >> -	start &= PAGE_MASK;
> >> +	start = untagged_addr(start) & PAGE_MASK;
> >>  	len = (unsigned long) nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT;
> >>  	end = start + len;
> > 
> > Hmm, this function, and the other, goes on to do:
> > 
> >         if (unlikely(!access_ok((void __user *)start, len)))
> >                 return 0;
> > 
> > and I thought that access_ok takes in the tagged pointer?
> > 
> > How about re-order it a bit?
> 
> access_ok() can handle tagged or untagged pointers. It just strips the
> tag bits from the top bits. Current order doesn't really matter from
> functionality point of view. There might be minor gain in delaying
> untagging in __get_user_pages_fast() but I could go either way.

I understand the current ARM and SPARC implementations don't do much
with the tags, but it feels like a really big assumption for the core
code that all future uses of tags will be fine to have them stripped
out of 'void __user *' pointers. IMHO that is something we should not
be doing in the core kernel..

Jason