linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/11] x86: remove address space overrides using set

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200827093748.GA13887@lst.de>
Date:   Thu, 27 Aug 2020 11:37:48 +0200
From:   'Christoph Hellwig' <hch@....de>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc:     'Christoph Hellwig' <hch@....de>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/11] x86: remove address space overrides using
 set_fs()

On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 08:23:11AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Christoph Hellwig
> > Sent: 17 August 2020 08:32
> >
> > Stop providing the possibility to override the address space using
> > set_fs() now that there is no need for that any more.  To properly
> > handle the TASK_SIZE_MAX checking for 4 vs 5-level page tables on
> > x86 a new alternative is introduced, which just like the one in
> > entry_64.S has to use the hardcoded virtual address bits to escape
> > the fact that TASK_SIZE_MAX isn't actually a constant when 5-level
> > page tables are enabled.
> ....
> > @@ -93,7 +69,7 @@ static inline bool pagefault_disabled(void);
> >  #define access_ok(addr, size)					\
> >  ({									\
> >  	WARN_ON_IN_IRQ();						\
> > -	likely(!__range_not_ok(addr, size, user_addr_max()));		\
> > +	likely(!__range_not_ok(addr, size, TASK_SIZE_MAX));		\
> >  })
> 
> Can't that always compare against a constant even when 5-levl
> page tables are enabled on x86-64?
> 
> On x86-64 it can (probably) reduce to (addr | (addr + size)) < 0.

I'll leave that to the x86 maintainers as a future cleanup if wanted.