linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] compiler: enable CONFIG_OPTIMIZE

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]

Date:   Mon, 30 Sep 2019 12:26:37 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>,
        Stefan Wahren <wahrenst@....net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] compiler: enable CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING forcibly

On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 03:38:44PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 3:08 PM Nick Desaulniers
> <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > So get_user() was passed a bad value/pointer from userspace? Do you
> > know which of the tree calls to get_user() from sock_setsockopt() is
> > failing?  (It's not immediately clear to me how this patch is at
> > fault, vs there just being a bug in the source somewhere).
> 
> Based on the error messages, the SO_PASSCRED ones are almost certainly
> from the get_user() in net/core/sock.c: sock_setsockopt(), which just
> does
> 
>         if (optlen < sizeof(int))
>                 return -EINVAL;
> 
>         if (get_user(val, (int __user *)optval))
>                 return -EFAULT;
> 
>         valbool = val ? 1 : 0;
> 
> but it's the other messages imply that a lot of other cases are
> failing too (ie the "Failed to bind netlink socket" is, according to
> google, a bind() that fails with the same EFAULT error).
> 
> There are probably even more failures that happen elsewhere and just
> don't even syslog the fact. I'd guess that all get_user() calls just
> fail, and those are the ones that happen to get printed out.
> 
> Now, _why_ it would fail, I have ni idea. There are several inlines in
> the arm uaccess.h file, and it depends on other headers like
> <asm/domain.h> with more inlines still - eg get/set_domain() etc.
> 
> Soem of that code is pretty subtle. They have fixed register usage
> (but the asm macros actually check them). And the inline asms clobber
> the link register, but they do seem to clearly _state_ that they
> clobber it, so who knows.
> 
> Just based on the EFAULT, I'd _guess_ that it's some interaction with
> the domain access control register (so that get/set_domain() thing).
> But I'm not even sure that code is enabled for the Rpi2, so who
> knows..

FWIW, we've run into issues with CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING and local
variables marked as 'register' where GCC would do crazy things and end
up corrupting data, so I suspect the use of fixed registers in the arm
uaccess functions is hitting something similar:

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91111

Although this particular case couldn't be reproduced with GCC 9, prior
versions of the compiler get it wrong so I'm very much opposed to enabling
CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING by default on arm/arm64.

Will