linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3 6/8] x86/mm: Provide ARCH_GET_UNTAG_MASK and ARCH_ENABLE_TAGGED

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: <20220610180635.l44opq2votd3gxpl@black.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Jun 2022 21:06:35 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
Cc:     "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Lutomirski, Andy" <luto@...nel.org>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "hjl.tools@...il.com" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "kcc@...gle.com" <kcc@...gle.com>,
        "andreyknvl@...il.com" <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
        "ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        "dvyukov@...gle.com" <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "ryabinin.a.a@...il.com" <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
        "glider@...gle.com" <glider@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 6/8] x86/mm: Provide ARCH_GET_UNTAG_MASK and
 ARCH_ENABLE_TAGGED_ADDR

On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 04:16:01PM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-06-10 at 17:35 +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > +static int prctl_enable_tagged_addr(unsigned long nr_bits)
> > +{
> > +       struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm;
> > +
> > +       /* Already enabled? */
> > +       if (mm->context.lam_cr3_mask)
> > +               return -EBUSY;
> > +
> > +       /* LAM has to be enabled before spawning threads */
> > +       if (get_nr_threads(current) > 1)
> > +               return -EBUSY;
> 
> Does this work for vfork()? I guess the idea is that locking is not
> needed below because there is only one thread with the MM, but with
> vfork() another task could operate on the MM, call fork(), etc. I'm not
> sure...

I'm not sure I follow. vfork() blocks parent process until child exit or
execve(). I don't see how it is a problem.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov