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: <5d3b281f-3d8b-4bbd-9681-b226810c3e8b@www.fastmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 12 Jun 2022 14:03:43 -0700
From:   "Andy Lutomirski" <luto@...nel.org>
To:     "Rick P Edgecombe" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "Dave Hansen" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "andreyknvl@...il.com" <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
        "kcc@...gle.com" <kcc@...gle.com>,
        "Andi Kleen" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        "dvyukov@...gle.com" <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <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 3:18 PM, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-06-10 at 11:08 -0700, Edgecombe, Richard P wrote:
>> On Fri, 2022-06-10 at 21:06 +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> > 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.
>> 
>> Oh yea, you're right.
>
> Actually, I guess vfork() only suspends the calling thread. So what if
> you had:
> 1. Parent spawns a bunch of threads
> 2. vforks()
> 3. Child enables LAM (it only has one thread, so succeeds)
> 4. Child exits()
> 5. Parent has some threads with LAM, and some not
>
> It's some weird userspace that doesn't deserve to have things work for
> it, but I wonder if it could open up little races around untagging. As
> an example, KVM might have a super narrow race where it checks for tags
> in memslots using addr != untagged_addr(addr) before checking
> access_ok(addr, ...). See __kvm_set_memory_region(). If mm-
>>context.untag_mask got set in the middle, tagged memslots could be
> added.

get_nr_threads() is the wrong thing.  Either look at mm->mm_users or find a way to get rid of this restriction entirely.

IMO it would not be insane to have a way to iterate over all tasks using an mm.  But doing this for io_uring, etc might be interesting.