linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 24/35] arm64: mte: Switch GCR

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: <8affcfbe-b8b4-0914-1651-368f669ddf85@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Aug 2020 11:56:49 +0100
From:   Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
Cc:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@...gle.com>,
        Elena Petrova <lenaptr@...gle.com>,
        Branislav Rankov <Branislav.Rankov@....com>,
        Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 24/35] arm64: mte: Switch GCR_EL1 in kernel entry and exit

On 8/27/20 11:38 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 07:27:06PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
>> index cde127508e38..a17fefb0571b 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
>> @@ -172,6 +172,29 @@ alternative_else_nop_endif
>>  #endif
>>  	.endm
>>  
>> +	/* Note: tmp should always be a callee-saved register */
> 
> Why callee-saved? Do you preserve it anywhere here?
>

Aargh, this is an old comment, I forgot to remove it after the last refactor.
Thank you for pointing this out.

>> +	.macro mte_restore_gcr, el, tsk, tmp, tmp2
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_MTE
>> +alternative_if_not ARM64_MTE
>> +	b	1f
>> +alternative_else_nop_endif
>> +	.if	\el == 0
>> +	ldr	\tmp, [\tsk, #THREAD_GCR_EL1_USER]
>> +	.else
>> +	ldr_l	\tmp, gcr_kernel_excl
>> +	.endif
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Calculate and set the exclude mask preserving
>> +	 * the RRND (bit[16]) setting.
>> +	 */
>> +	mrs_s	\tmp2, SYS_GCR_EL1
>> +	bfi	\tmp2, \tmp, #0, #16
>> +	msr_s	SYS_GCR_EL1, \tmp2
>> +	isb
>> +1:
>> +#endif
>> +	.endm
>> +
>>  	.macro	kernel_entry, el, regsize = 64
>>  	.if	\regsize == 32
>>  	mov	w0, w0				// zero upper 32 bits of x0
>> @@ -209,6 +232,8 @@ alternative_else_nop_endif
>>  
>>  	ptrauth_keys_install_kernel tsk, x20, x22, x23
>>  
>> +	mte_restore_gcr 1, tsk, x22, x23
>> +
>>  	scs_load tsk, x20
>>  	.else
>>  	add	x21, sp, #S_FRAME_SIZE
>> @@ -386,6 +411,8 @@ alternative_else_nop_endif
>>  	/* No kernel C function calls after this as user keys are set. */
>>  	ptrauth_keys_install_user tsk, x0, x1, x2
>>  
>> +	mte_restore_gcr 0, tsk, x0, x1
>> +
>>  	apply_ssbd 0, x0, x1
>>  	.endif
>>  
>> @@ -957,6 +984,7 @@ SYM_FUNC_START(cpu_switch_to)
>>  	mov	sp, x9
>>  	msr	sp_el0, x1
>>  	ptrauth_keys_install_kernel x1, x8, x9, x10
>> +	mte_restore_gcr 1, x1, x8, x9
>>  	scs_save x0, x8
>>  	scs_load x1, x8
>>  	ret
> 
> Since we set GCR_EL1 on exception entry and return, why is this needed?
> We don't have a per-kernel thread GCR_EL1, it's global to all threads,
> so I think cpu_switch_to() should not be touched.
> 

I agree, we can remove it. We only require the kernel entry and the kernel exit
ones.

>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/mte.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/mte.c
>> index 7717ea9bc2a7..cfac7d02f032 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/mte.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/mte.c
>> @@ -18,10 +18,14 @@
>>  
>>  #include <asm/barrier.h>
>>  #include <asm/cpufeature.h>
>> +#include <asm/kasan.h>
>> +#include <asm/kprobes.h>
>>  #include <asm/mte.h>
>>  #include <asm/ptrace.h>
>>  #include <asm/sysreg.h>
>>  
>> +u64 gcr_kernel_excl __read_mostly;
> 
> Could we make this __ro_after_init?
>

Yes, it makes sense, it should be updated only once through mte_init_tags().

Something to consider though here is that this might not be the right approach
if in future we want to add stack tagging. In such a case we need to know the
kernel exclude mask before any C code is executed. Initializing the mask via
mte_init_tags() it is too late.

I was thinking to add a compilation define instead of having gcr_kernel_excl in
place. This might not work if the kernel excl mask is meant to change during the
execution.

Thoughts?

>> +
>>  static void mte_sync_page_tags(struct page *page, pte_t *ptep, bool check_swap)
>>  {
>>  	pte_t old_pte = READ_ONCE(*ptep);
>> @@ -115,6 +119,13 @@ void * __must_check mte_set_mem_tag_range(void *addr, size_t size, u8 tag)
>>  	return ptr;
>>  }
>>  
>> +void mte_init_tags(u64 max_tag)
>> +{
>> +	u64 incl = ((1ULL << ((max_tag & MTE_TAG_MAX) + 1)) - 1);
> 
> I'd rather use GENMASK here, it is more readable.
> 

Agree, we can change it.

-- 
Regards,
Vincenzo