linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 08/15] mm: Add unsafe_follow

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: <CAKMK7uGVUf9RfTHKa8fpTUgGQ5iy+5toK+tQYp0TokKU=iM8pQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Oct 2020 10:23:09 +0100
From:   Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        "J??r??me Glisse" <jglisse@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 08/15] mm: Add unsafe_follow_pfn

On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 9:56 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > +int unsafe_follow_pfn(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address,
> > +     unsigned long *pfn)
>
> The one tab indent here looks weird, normally tis would be two tabs
> or aligned aftetthe opening brace.
>
> > +{
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_STRICT_FOLLOW_PFN
> > +     pr_info("unsafe follow_pfn usage rejected, see CONFIG_STRICT_FOLLOW_PFN\n");
> > +     return -EINVAL;
> > +#else
> > +     WARN_ONCE(1, "unsafe follow_pfn usage\n");
> > +     add_taint(TAINT_USER, LOCKDEP_STILL_OK);
> > +
> > +     return follow_pfn(vma, address, pfn);
> > +#endif
>
> Woudn't this be a pretty good use case of "if (IS_ENABLED(...)))"?
>
> Also I'd expect the inverse polarity of the config option, that is
> a USAFE_FOLLOW_PFN option to enable to unsafe behavior.

Was just about to send out v5, will apply your suggestions for that
using IS_ENABLED.

Wrt negative or positive Kconfig, I was following STRICT_DEVMEM symbol
as precedence. But easy to invert if there's strong feeling the other
way round, I'm not attached to either.

> > +/**
> > + * unsafe_follow_pfn - look up PFN at a user virtual address
> > + * @vma: memory mapping
> > + * @address: user virtual address
> > + * @pfn: location to store found PFN
> > + *
> > + * Only IO mappings and raw PFN mappings are allowed.
> > + *
> > + * Returns zero and the pfn at @pfn on success, -ve otherwise.
> > + */
> > +int unsafe_follow_pfn(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address,
> > +     unsigned long *pfn)
> > +{
> > +     return follow_pfn(vma, address, pfn);
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(unsafe_follow_pfn);
>
> Any reason this doesn't use the warn and disable logic?

I figured without an mmu there's not much guarantees anyway. But I
guess I can put it in here too for consistency.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch