linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: remove the rest of asm-uaccess.h

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: <20191127170148.GG51937@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Nov 2019 17:01:49 +0000
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, steve.capper@....com,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        allison@...utok.net, info@...ux.net, alexios.zavras@...el.com,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
        boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, jgross@...e.com,
        Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
        Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: remove the rest of asm-uaccess.h

On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 11:09:35AM -0500, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 11:03 AM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 10:31:54AM -0500, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 10:12 AM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 09:24:06PM -0500, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> > > > > The __uaccess_ttbr0_disable and __uaccess_ttbr0_enable,
> > > > > are the last two macros defined in asm-uaccess.h.
> > > > >
> > > > > Replace them with C wrappers and call C functions from
> > > > > kernel_entry and kernel_exit.
> > > >
> > > > For now, please leave those as-is.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think we want to have out-of-line C wrappers in the middle of
> > > > the entry assembly where we don't have a complete kernel environment.
> > > > The use in entry code can also assume non-preemptibility, while the C
> > > > functions have to explcitily disable that.
> > >
> > > I do not understand, if C function is called form non-preemptible
> > > context it stays non-preemptible. kernel_exit already may call C
> > > functions around the time __uaccess_ttbr0_enable is called (it may
> > > call post_ttbr_update_workaround), and that C functions does not do
> > > explicit preempt disable:
> >
> > Sorry, I meant that IRQs are disabled here.
> >
> > The C wrapper calls __uaccess_ttbr0_enable(), which calls
> > local_irq_save() and local_irq_restore(). Those are pointless in the
> > bowels of the entry code, and potentially expensive if IRQ prio masking
> > is in use.
> >
> > I'd rather not add more out-of-line C code calls here right now as I'd
> > prefer to factor out the logic to C in a better way.
> 
> Ah, yes, this makes sense. I could certainly factor out C calls in a
> better way, or is this something you want to work on?

I'm hoping to do that as part of ongoing entry-deasm work, now that a
lot of the prerequisite work was merged in v5.4.

> Without removing these assembly macros I do not think we want to
> address this suggestion from Kees Cook:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+CK2bCBS2fKOTmTFm13iv3u5TBPwpoCsYeeP352DVE-gs9GJw@mail.gmail.com/

In the mean time, we could add checks around addr_limit_user_check(),
and in the context-switch path. I have some preparatory cleanup to allow
for the context-switch check, which I'll send out at -rc1. That was what
I used to detect the case you reported previously.

Thanks,
Mark.