linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] powerpc: Implement user_access

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: <87ftg6icc8.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
Date:   Thu, 23 Jan 2020 23:31:03 +1100
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] powerpc: Implement user_access_begin and friends

Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> writes:
> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr> writes:
>> Today, when a function like strncpy_from_user() is called,
>> the userspace access protection is de-activated and re-activated
>> for every word read.
>>
>> By implementing user_access_begin and friends, the protection
>> is de-activated at the beginning of the copy and re-activated at the
>> end.
>>
>> Implement user_access_begin(), user_access_end() and
>> unsafe_get_user(), unsafe_put_user() and unsafe_copy_to_user()
>>
>> For the time being, we keep user_access_save() and
>> user_access_restore() as nops.
>
> That means we will run with user access enabled in a few more places, but
> it's only used sparingly AFAICS:
>
>   kernel/trace/trace_branch.c:    unsigned long flags = user_access_save();
>   lib/ubsan.c:    unsigned long flags = user_access_save();
>   lib/ubsan.c:    unsigned long ua_flags = user_access_save();
>   mm/kasan/common.c:      unsigned long flags = user_access_save();
>
> And we don't have objtool checking that user access enablement isn't
> leaking in the first place, so I guess it's OK for us not to implement
> these to begin with?

It looks like we can implement them on on all three KUAP
implementations.

For radix and 8xx we just return/set the relevant SPR.

For book3s/32/kup.h I think we'd just need to add a KUAP_CURRENT case to
allow_user_access()?

cheers