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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20220405081427.GD30877@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 5 Apr 2022 10:14:27 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Bharata B Rao <bharata@....com>
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 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:}