[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200901142158.fo7tecobgki5hffa@treble>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 09:21:58 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/uaccess: Use pointer masking to limit uaccess
speculation
On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 03:02:08PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> d instead do user pointer
> > masking, throughout the x86 uaccess code. This is similar to what arm64
> > is already doing.
> >
> > barrier_nospec() is now unused, and can be removed.
>
> One thing to consider is whether you need a speculation barrier after
> set_fs(). Otherwise for code like:
>
> | fs = get_fs();
> | if (cond)
> | set_fs(KERNEL_DS);
> | copy_to_user(...)
> | set_fs(fs)
>
> ... the set_fs() can occur speculatively, and may be able to satisfy
> the masking logic if forwarded within the cpu.
>
> See arm64 commit:
>
> c2f0ad4fc089cff8 ("arm64: uaccess: Prevent speculative use of the current addr_limit")
Do you have any examples of that conditional set_fs(KERNEL_DS) pattern?
I wasn't able to find any.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists