linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] arm64: an infinite loop in generic_perform

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: <e8e87aba-22f7-d039-ceaa-a93591b04b1e@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Jun 2021 21:36:54 +0100
From:   Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Chen Huang <chenhuang5@...wei.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] arm64: an infinite loop in generic_perform_write()

On 2021-06-24 19:55, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 04:27:17PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 02:22:27PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>> FWIW I think the only way to make the kernel behaviour any more robust here
>>> would be to make the whole uaccess API more expressive, such that rather
>>> than simply saying "I only got this far" it could actually differentiate
>>> between stopping due to a fault which may be recoverable and worth retrying,
>>> and one which definitely isn't.
>>
>> ... and propagate that "more expressive" information through what, 3 or 4
>> levels in the call chain?
>>
>>  From include/linux/uaccess.h:
>>
>>   * If raw_copy_{to,from}_user(to, from, size) returns N, size - N bytes starting
>>   * at to must become equal to the bytes fetched from the corresponding area
>>   * starting at from.  All data past to + size - N must be left unmodified.
>>   *
>>   * If copying succeeds, the return value must be 0.  If some data cannot be
>>   * fetched, it is permitted to copy less than had been fetched; the only
>>   * hard requirement is that not storing anything at all (i.e. returning size)
>>   * should happen only when nothing could be copied.  In other words, you don't
>>   * have to squeeze as much as possible - it is allowed, but not necessary.
>>
>> arm64 instances violate the aforementioned hard requirement.
> 
> After reading the above a few more times, I think I get it. The key
> sentence is: not storing anything at all should happen only when nothing
> could be copied. In the MTE case, something can still be copied.
> 
>> Please, fix
>> it there; it's not hard.  All you need is an exception handler in .Ltiny15
>> that would fall back to (short) byte-by-byte copy if the faulting address
>> happened to be unaligned.  Or just do one-byte copy, not that it had been
>> considerably cheaper than a loop.  Will be cheaper than propagating that extra
>> information up the call chain, let alone paying for extra ->write_begin()
>> and ->write_end() for single byte in generic_perform_write().
> 
> Yeah, it's definitely fixable in the arch code. I misread the above
> requirements and thought it could be fixed in the core code.
> 
> Quick hack, though I think in the actual exception handling path in .S
> more sense (and it needs the copy_to_user for symmetry):

Hmm, if anything the asm version might be even more straightforward; I 
think it's pretty much just this (untested):

diff --git a/arch/arm64/lib/copy_to_user.S b/arch/arm64/lib/copy_to_user.S
index 043da90f5dd7..632bf1f9540d 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/lib/copy_to_user.S
+++ b/arch/arm64/lib/copy_to_user.S
@@ -62,6 +62,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__arch_copy_to_user)

         .section .fixup,"ax"
         .align  2
-9998:  sub     x0, end, dst                    // bytes not copied
+9998:  ldrb    w7, [x1]
+USER(9997f,    sttrb   w7, [x0])
+       add     x0, x0, #1
+9997:  sub     x0, end, dst                    // bytes not copied
         ret
         .previous

If we can get away without trying to finish the whole copy bytewise, 
(i.e. we don't cause any faults of our own by knowingly over-reading in 
the routine itself), I'm more than happy with that.

Robin.

> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
> index b5f08621fa29..903f8a2a457b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
> @@ -415,6 +415,15 @@ extern unsigned long __must_check __arch_copy_from_user(void *to, const void __u
>   	uaccess_ttbr0_enable();						\
>   	__acfu_ret = __arch_copy_from_user((to),			\
>   				      __uaccess_mask_ptr(from), (n));	\
> +	if (__acfu_ret == n) {						\
> +		int __cfu_err = 0;					\
> +		char __cfu_val;						\
> +		__raw_get_mem("ldtr", __cfu_val, (char *)from, __cfu_err);\
> +		if (!__cfu_err) {					\
> +			*(char *)to = __cfu_val;			\
> +			__acfu_ret--;					\
> +		}							\
> +	}								\
>   	uaccess_ttbr0_disable();					\
>   	__acfu_ret;							\
>   })
> 
> Of course, it only fixes the MTE problem, I'll ignore the MMIO case
> (though it may work in certain configurations like synchronous faults).
>