linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/14] x86: use more conventional access

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: <CAHk-=wgYu67OwP4LhcrPdDVxv2mOsx-Xsc2DKoVW6GZwKFtOYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Feb 2022 12:24:13 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
        sparclinux <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:QUALCOMM HEXAGON..." <linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        Brian Cain <bcain@...eaurora.org>,
        Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        linux-csky@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        "open list:SYNOPSYS ARC ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "open list:TENSILICA XTENSA PORT (xtensa)" 
        <linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        alpha <linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-um <linux-um@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
        Openrisc <openrisc@...ts.librecores.org>,
        Greentime Hu <green.hu@...il.com>,
        Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        Parisc List <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nick Hu <nickhu@...estech.com>,
        "open list:BROADCOM NVRAM DRIVER" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@...nel.org>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/14] x86: use more conventional access_ok() definition

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 12:01 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> x86-64 has always(*) used TASK_SIZE_MAX for access_ok(), and the
> get_user() assembler implementation does the same.

Side note: we could just check the sign bit instead, and avoid big
constants that way.

Right now we actually have this complexity in the x86-64 user access code:

  #ifdef CONFIG_X86_5LEVEL
  #define LOAD_TASK_SIZE_MINUS_N(n) \
        ALTERNATIVE __stringify(mov $((1 << 47) - 4096 - (n)),%rdx), \
                    __stringify(mov $((1 << 56) - 4096 - (n)),%rdx),
X86_FEATURE_LA57
  #else
  #define LOAD_TASK_SIZE_MINUS_N(n) \
          mov $(TASK_SIZE_MAX - (n)),%_ASM_DX
  #endif

just because the code tries to get that TASK_SIZE_MAX boundary just right.

And getting that boundary just right is important on 32-bit x86, but
it's *much* less important on x86-64.

There's still a (weak) reason to do it even for 64-bit code: page
faults outside the valid user space range don't actually cause a #PF
fault - they cause #GP - and then we have the #GP handler warn about
"this address hasn't been checked".

Which is nice and useful for doing syzbot kind of randomization loads
(ie user accesses that didn't go through access_ok() will stand out
nicely), but maybe it's not worth this. syzbot would be fine with only
the "sign bit set" case warning for the same thing.

So on x86-64, we could just check the sign of the address instead, and
simplify and shrink those get/put_user() code sequences (but
array_index_mask_nospec() currently uses the carry flag computation
too, so we'd have to change that part as well, maybe not worth it).

                  Linus