linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v0 0/6] x86/AMD: Userspace address tagging

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7da72067-6196-932d-92d0-1ff2018cee7f@amd.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Apr 2022 14:10:42 +0530
From:   Bharata B Rao <bharata@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, shuah@...nel.org,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, ananth.narayan@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v0 0/6] x86/AMD: Userspace address tagging



On 4/5/2022 1:44 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 01:18:41PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
>> On 3/22/2022 3:59 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 
>>> I hate to be a pain, but I'm really not convinced that this feature
>>> is suitable for Linux.  There are a few reasons:
>>>
>>> Right now, the concept that the high bit of an address determines
>>> whether it's a user or a kernel address is fairly fundamental to the
>>> x86_64 (and x86_32!) code.  It may not be strictly necessary to
>>> preserve this, but violating it would require substantial thought.
>>> With UAI enabled, kernel and user addresses are, functionally,
>>> interleaved.  This makes things like access_ok checks, and more
>>> generally anything that operates on a range of addresses, behave
>>> potentially quite differently.  A lot of auditing of existing code
>>> would be needed to make it safe.
>>
>> Ok got that. However can you point to me a few instances in the current
>> kernel code where such assumption of high bit being user/kernel address
>> differentiator exists so that I get some idea of what it takes to
>> audit all such cases?
> 
> The fact that you have to ask and can't readily find them should be a
> big honking clue on its own, no?
> 
> Anyway, see here:
> 
> arch/x86/events/perf_event.h:static inline bool kernel_ip(unsigned long ip)
> arch/x86/events/perf_event.h:{
> arch/x86/events/perf_event.h:#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> arch/x86/events/perf_event.h:   return ip > PAGE_OFFSET;
> arch/x86/events/perf_event.h:#else
> arch/x86/events/perf_event.h:   return (long)ip < 0;
> arch/x86/events/perf_event.h:#endif
> arch/x86/events/perf_event.h:}

That's a pretty good and clear example.

Thanks Peter. I do now see that auditing all such instances would be
an uphill task.

Regards,
Bharata.