linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v13 4/7] arm64: mte: Enable TCO in functions that can read beyond buffer limits

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: <20210223120530.GA20769@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Feb 2021 12:05:32 +0000
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:     Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@...gle.com>,
        Branislav Rankov <Branislav.Rankov@....com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 4/7] arm64: mte: Enable TCO in functions that can
 read beyond buffer limits

On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 10:56:46AM +0000, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> On 2/22/21 5:58 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > We'll still have an issue with dynamically switching the async/sync mode
> > at run-time. Luckily kasan doesn't do this now. The problem is that
> > until the last CPU have been switched from async to sync, we can't
> > toggle the static label. When switching from sync to async, we need
> > to do it on the first CPU being switched.
> 
> I totally agree on this point. In the case of runtime switching we might need
> the rethink completely the strategy and depends a lot on what we want to allow
> and what not. For the kernel I imagine we will need to expose something in sysfs
> that affects all the cores and then maybe stop_machine() to propagate it to all
> the cores. Do you think having some of the cores running in sync mode and some
> in async is a viable solution?

stop_machine() is an option indeed. I think it's still possible to run
some cores in async while others in sync but the static key here would
only be toggled when no async CPUs are left.

> Probably it is worth to discuss it further once we cross that bridge.

Yes. For now, a warning should do so that we don't forget.

-- 
Catalin