Message-ID: <YgsUKcXGR7r4nINj@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Tue, 15 Feb 2022 02:47:05 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
        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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/14] x86: use more conventional access_ok() definition

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 08:17:07PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 12:01:05PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 11:46 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > As Al pointed out, they turned out to be necessary on sparc64, but the only
> > > definitions are on sparc64 and x86, so it's possible that they serve a similar
> > > purpose here, in which case changing the limit from TASK_SIZE to
> > > TASK_SIZE_MAX is probably wrong as well.
> > 
> > x86-64 has always(*) used TASK_SIZE_MAX for access_ok(), and the
> > get_user() assembler implementation does the same.
> > 
> > I think any __range_not_ok() users that use TASK_SIZE are entirely
> > historical, and should be just fixed.
> 
> IIRC, that was mostly userland stack trace collection in perf.
> I'll try to dig in archives and see what shows up - it's been
> a while ago...

After some digging:

	access_ok() needs only to make sure that MMU won't go anywhere near
the kernel page tables; address limit for 32bit threads is none of its
concern, so TASK_SIZE_MAX is right for it.

	valid_user_frame() in arch/x86/events/core.c: used while walking
the userland call chain.  The reason it's not access_ok() is only that
perf_callchain_user() might've been called from interrupt that came while
we'd been under KERNEL_DS.
	That had been back in 2015 and it had been obsoleted since 2017, commit
88b0193d9418 (perf/callchain: Force USER_DS when invoking perf_callchain_user()).
We had been guaranteed USER_DS ever since.
	IOW, it could've reverted to use of access_ok() at any point after that.
TASK_SIZE vs TASK_SIZE_MAX is pretty much an accident there - might've been
TASK_SIZE_MAX from the very beginning.

	copy_stack_frame() in arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c: similar story,
except the commit that made sure callers will have USER_DS - cac9b9a4b083
(stacktrace: Force USER_DS for stack_trace_save_user()) in this case.
Also could've been using access_ok() just fine.  Amusingly, access_ok()
used to be there, until it had been replaced with explicit check on
Jul 22 2019 - 4 days after that had been made useless by fix in the caller...

	copy_from_user_nmi().  That one is a bit more interesting.
We have a call chain from perf_output_sample_ustack() (covered by
force_uaccess_begin() these days, not that it mattered for x86 now),
there's something odd in dumpstack.c:copy_code() (with explicit check
for TASK_SIZE_MAX in the caller) and there's a couple of callers in
Intel PMU code.
	AFAICS, there's no reason whatsoever to use TASK_SIZE
in that one - the point is to prevent copyin from the kernel
memory, and in that respect TASK_SIZE_MAX isn't any worse.
The check in copy_code() probably should go.

	So all of those guys should be simply switched to access_ok().
Might be worth making that a preliminary patch - it's independent
from everything else and there's no point folding it into any of the
patches in the series.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists