linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 05/12] arm64: csum: Disable KASAN for do

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: <20200415172813.GA2272@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Apr 2020 18:28:14 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/12] arm64: csum: Disable KASAN for do_csum()

Hi Will,

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 05:52:11PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> do_csum() over-reads the source buffer and therefore abuses
> READ_ONCE_NOCHECK() to avoid tripping up KASAN. In preparation for
> READ_ONCE_NOCHECK() becoming a macro, and therefore losing its
> '__no_sanitize_address' annotation, just annotate do_csum() explicitly
> and fall back to normal loads.

I'm confused by this. The whole point of READ_ONCE_NOCHECK() is that it
isn't checked by KASAN, so if that semantic is removed it has no reason
to exist.

Changing that will break the unwind/stacktrace code across multiple
architectures. IIRC they use READ_ONCE_NOCHECK() for two reasons:

1. Races with concurrent modification, as might happen when a thread's
   stack is corrupted. Allowing the unwinder to bail out after a sanity
   check means the resulting report is more useful than a KASAN splat in
   the unwinder. I made the arm64 unwinder robust to this case.

2. I believe that the frame record itself /might/ be poisoned by KASAN,
   since it's not meant to be an accessible object at the C langauge
   level. I could be wrong about this, and would have to check.
 
I would like to keep the unwinding robust in the first case, even if the
second case doesn't apply, and I'd prefer to not mark the entirety of
the unwinding code as unchecked as that's sufficiently large an subtle
that it could have nasty bugs.

Is there any way we keep something like READ_ONCE_NOCHECK() around even
if we have to give it reduced functionality relative to READ_ONCE()?

I'm not enirely sure why READ_ONCE_NOCHECK() had to go, so if there's a
particular pain point I'm happy to take a look.

Thanks,
Mark.

> 
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
> Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/lib/csum.c | 20 ++++++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/lib/csum.c b/arch/arm64/lib/csum.c
> index 60eccae2abad..78b87a64ca0a 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/lib/csum.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/lib/csum.c
> @@ -14,7 +14,11 @@ static u64 accumulate(u64 sum, u64 data)
>  	return tmp + (tmp >> 64);
>  }
>  
> -unsigned int do_csum(const unsigned char *buff, int len)
> +/*
> + * We over-read the buffer and this makes KASAN unhappy. Instead, disable
> + * instrumentation and call kasan explicitly.
> + */
> +unsigned int __no_sanitize_address do_csum(const unsigned char *buff, int len)
>  {
>  	unsigned int offset, shift, sum;
>  	const u64 *ptr;
> @@ -42,7 +46,7 @@ unsigned int do_csum(const unsigned char *buff, int len)
>  	 * odd/even alignment, and means we can ignore it until the very end.
>  	 */
>  	shift = offset * 8;
> -	data = READ_ONCE_NOCHECK(*ptr++);
> +	data = *ptr++;
>  #ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN
>  	data = (data >> shift) << shift;
>  #else
> @@ -58,10 +62,10 @@ unsigned int do_csum(const unsigned char *buff, int len)
>  	while (unlikely(len > 64)) {
>  		__uint128_t tmp1, tmp2, tmp3, tmp4;
>  
> -		tmp1 = READ_ONCE_NOCHECK(*(__uint128_t *)ptr);
> -		tmp2 = READ_ONCE_NOCHECK(*(__uint128_t *)(ptr + 2));
> -		tmp3 = READ_ONCE_NOCHECK(*(__uint128_t *)(ptr + 4));
> -		tmp4 = READ_ONCE_NOCHECK(*(__uint128_t *)(ptr + 6));
> +		tmp1 = *(__uint128_t *)ptr;
> +		tmp2 = *(__uint128_t *)(ptr + 2);
> +		tmp3 = *(__uint128_t *)(ptr + 4);
> +		tmp4 = *(__uint128_t *)(ptr + 6);
>  
>  		len -= 64;
>  		ptr += 8;
> @@ -85,7 +89,7 @@ unsigned int do_csum(const unsigned char *buff, int len)
>  		__uint128_t tmp;
>  
>  		sum64 = accumulate(sum64, data);
> -		tmp = READ_ONCE_NOCHECK(*(__uint128_t *)ptr);
> +		tmp = *(__uint128_t *)ptr;
>  
>  		len -= 16;
>  		ptr += 2;
> @@ -100,7 +104,7 @@ unsigned int do_csum(const unsigned char *buff, int len)
>  	}
>  	if (len > 0) {
>  		sum64 = accumulate(sum64, data);
> -		data = READ_ONCE_NOCHECK(*ptr);
> +		data = *ptr;
>  		len -= 8;
>  	}
>  	/*
> -- 
> 2.26.0.110.g2183baf09c-goog
>