linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v19 00/15] arm64: untag user pointers passed to the kernel

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: <20190809092758.GK10425@arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Aug 2019 10:28:00 +0100
From:   Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Christian Koenig <Christian.Koenig@....com>,
        Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
        Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>,
        Lee Smith <Lee.Smith@....com>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Jacob Bramley <Jacob.Bramley@....com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Evgeniy Stepanov <eugenis@...gle.com>,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        Ruben Ayrapetyan <Ruben.Ayrapetyan@....com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
        Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@....com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@....com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>,
        Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@....com>,
        Alexander Deucher <Alexander.Deucher@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        enh <enh@...gle.com>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...lanox.com>,
        Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 00/15] arm64: untag user pointers passed to the kernel

On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 10:00:17AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 04:09:04PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 03:33:00PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 14:12:19 -0700 Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > The ones that are left are the mm ones: 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Andrew, could you take a look and give your Acked-by or pick them up directly?
> > > > 
> > > > Given the subsystem Acks, it seems like 3-10 and 12 could all just go
> > > > via Andrew? I hope he agrees. :)
> > > 
> > > I'll grab everything that has not yet appeared in linux-next.  If more
> > > of these patches appear in linux-next I'll drop those as well.
> > > 
> > > The review discussion against " [PATCH v19 02/15] arm64: Introduce
> > > prctl() options to control the tagged user addresses ABI" has petered
> > > out inconclusively.  prctl() vs arch_prctl().
> > 
> > I've always disliked arch_prctl() existing at all. Given that tagging is
> > likely to be a multi-architectural feature, it seems like the controls
> > should live in prctl() to me.
> 
> It took a bit of grep'ing to figure out what Dave H meant by
> arch_prctl(). It's an x86-specific syscall which we do not have on arm64
> (and possibly any other architecture). Actually, we don't have any arm64
> specific syscalls, only the generic unistd.h, hence the confusion. For
> other arm64-specific prctls like SVE we used the generic sys_prctl() and
> I can see x86 not being consistent either (PR_MPX_ENABLE_MANAGEMENT).
> 
> In general I disagree with adding any arm64-specific syscalls but in
> this instance it can't even be justified. I'd rather see some clean-up
> similar to arch_ptrace/ptrace_request than introducing new syscall
> numbers (but as I suggested in my reply to Dave, that's for another
> patch series).

I had a go at refactoring this a while ago, but it fell by the wayside.

I can try to resurrect it if it's still considered worthwhile.

Cheers
---Dave