linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64/cpufeature: Move BUG_ON() inside get_arm64_ftr

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: <20200520154711.GD18302@gaia>
Date:   Wed, 20 May 2020 16:47:11 +0100
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/cpufeature: Move BUG_ON() inside
 get_arm64_ftr_reg()

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 01:20:13PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 06:52:54AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > There is no way to proceed when requested register could not be searched in
> > arm64_ftr_reg[]. Requesting for a non present register would be an error as
> > well. Hence lets just BUG_ON() when the search fails in get_arm64_ftr_reg()
> > rather than checking for return value and doing the same in some individual
> > callers.
> > 
> > But there are some callers that dont BUG_ON() upon search failure. It adds
> > an argument 'failsafe' that provides required switch between callers based
> > on whether they could proceed or not.
> > 
> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
> > Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
> > Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
> > Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> > Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
> > ---
> > Applies on next-20200518 that has recent cpufeature changes from Will.
> > 
> >  arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 26 +++++++++++++-------------
> >  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > index bc5048f152c1..62767cc540c3 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > @@ -557,7 +557,7 @@ static int search_cmp_ftr_reg(const void *id, const void *regp)
> >   *         - NULL on failure. It is upto the caller to decide
> >   *	     the impact of a failure.
> >   */
> > -static struct arm64_ftr_reg *get_arm64_ftr_reg(u32 sys_id)
> > +static struct arm64_ftr_reg *get_arm64_ftr_reg(u32 sys_id, bool failsafe)
> 
> Generally, I'm not a big fan of boolean arguments because they are really
> opaque at the callsite. It also seems bogus to me that we don't trust the
> caller to pass a valid sys_id, but we trust it to get "failsafe" right,
> which seems to mean "I promise to check the result isn't NULL before
> dereferencing it."
> 
> So I don't see how this patch improves anything. I'd actually be more
> inclined to stick a WARN() in get_arm64_ftr_reg() when it returns NULL and
> have the callers handle NULL by returning early, getting rid of all the
> BUG_ONs in here. Sure, the system might end up in a funny state, but we
> WARN()d about it and tried to keep going (and Linus has some strong opinions
> on this too).

Such WARN can be triggered by the user via emulate_sys_reg(), so we
can't really have it in get_arm64_ftr_reg() without a 'failsafe' option.

-- 
Catalin