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: <CAAeHK+yYEFHAQMxhL=uwfgaejo3Ld0gp5=ss38CjW6wyYCaZFw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Sep 2020 16:02:06 +0200
From:   Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:     Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        kasan-dev <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 <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 24/35] arm64: mte: Switch GCR_EL1 in kernel entry and exit

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 2:16 PM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 11:56:49AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> > 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/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.
>
> It depends on how stack tagging ends up in the kernel, whether it uses
> ADDG/SUBG or not. If it's only IRG, I think it can cope with changing
> the GCR_EL1.Excl in the middle of a function.
>
> > 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.
>
> A macro with the default value works for me. That's what it basically is
> currently, only that it ends up in a variable.

Some thoughts on the topic: gcr_kernel_excl is currently initialized
in mte_init_tags() and depends on the max_tag value dynamically
provided to it, so it's not something that can be expressed with a
define. In the case of KASAN the max_tag value is static, but if we
rely on that we make core MTE code depend on KASAN, which doesn't seem
right from the design perspective.