linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 13/18] uaccess: generalize 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: <CALCETrWTB65vJXsQTPd_o7BRoSU=uqD0pFzKS+r4YgDuiCCqaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Feb 2022 10:07:07 -0800
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        "linux@...linux.org.uk" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
        "guoren@...nel.org" <guoren@...nel.org>,
        "bcain@...eaurora.org" <bcain@...eaurora.org>,
        "geert@...ux-m68k.org" <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        "monstr@...str.eu" <monstr@...str.eu>,
        "tsbogend@...ha.franken.de" <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        "nickhu@...estech.com" <nickhu@...estech.com>,
        "green.hu@...il.com" <green.hu@...il.com>,
        "dinguyen@...nel.org" <dinguyen@...nel.org>,
        "shorne@...il.com" <shorne@...il.com>,
        "deller@....de" <deller@....de>,
        "mpe@...erman.id.au" <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "hca@...ux.ibm.com" <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "dalias@...c.org" <dalias@...c.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "richard@....at" <richard@....at>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "jcmvbkbc@...il.com" <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
        "ebiederm@...ssion.com" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "ardb@...nel.org" <ardb@...nel.org>,
        "linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org" <linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-csky@...r.kernel.org" <linux-csky@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org" <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
        "linux-mips@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
        "openrisc@...ts.librecores.org" <openrisc@...ts.librecores.org>,
        "linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        "linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-sh@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
        "sparclinux@...r.kernel.org" <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-um@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-um@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org" <linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/18] uaccess: generalize access_ok()

On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 1:30 AM David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote:
>
> From: Andy Lutomirski
> > Sent: 17 February 2022 19:15
> ...
> > This isn't actually optimal.  On x86, TASK_SIZE_MAX is a bizarre
> > constant that has a very specific value to work around a bug^Wdesign
> > error^Wfeature of Intel CPUs.  TASK_SIZE_MAX is the maximum address at
> > which userspace is permitted to allocate memory, but there is a huge
> > gap between user and kernel addresses, and any value in the gap would
> > be adequate for the comparison.  If we wanted to optimize this, simply
> > checking the high bit (which x86 can do without any immediate
> > constants at all) would be sufficient and, for an access known to fit
> > in 32 bits, one could get even fancier and completely ignore the size
> > of the access.  (For accesses not known to fit in 32 bits, I suspect
> > some creativity could still come up with a construction that's
> > substantially faster than the one in your patch.)
> >
> > So there's plenty of room for optimization here.
> >
> > (This is not in any respect a NAK -- it's just an observation that
> > this could be even better.)
>
> For 64bit arch that use the top bit to separate user/kernel
> you can test '(addr | size) >> 62)'.
> The compiler optimises out constant sizes.
>
> This has all been mentioned a lot of times.
> You do get different fault types.
>
> OTOH an explicit check for constant size (less than something big)
> can use the cheaper test of the sign bit.
> Big constant sizes could be compile time errors.

The different fault type issue may well be a real problem.  Right now
the core x86 fault code reserves the right to grouch if we get #GP
instead of #PF.  We could change that.