linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/4] uaccess: Add user_read_access_begin/end and user_write_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: <202004021322.5F80467@keescook>
Date:   Thu, 2 Apr 2020 13:27:46 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Dave Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/4] uaccess: Add user_read_access_begin/end and
 user_write_access_begin/end

On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 12:26:52PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:36 AM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Yup, I think it's a weakness of the ARM implementation and I'd like to
> > not extend it further. AFAIK we should never nest, but I would not be
> > surprised at all if we did.
> 
> Wel, at least the user_access_begin/end() sections can't nest. objtool
> verifies and warns about that on x86.

Right, yes, I mentioned that earlier in the thread. I meant I wasn't
100% sure about ARM's corner cases. I would _hope_ it doesn't.

> > If we were looking at a design goal for all architectures, I'd like
> > to be doing what the public PaX patchset
> 
> We already do better than PaX ever did. Seriously. Mainline has long
> since passed their hacky garbage.

I was just speaking to design principles in this area: if the "enable"
is called when already enabled, Something Is Wrong. :) (And one thing
still missing in this general subject is that x86 still lacks SMAP
emulation. And yes, I understand it's just not been a priority for anyone
that can work on it, but it is still a gap.)

-- 
Kees Cook