linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3 5/8] x86/uaccess: Provide untagged_addr() and remove tags before address check

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]

Date:   Thu, 16 Jun 2022 19:48:54 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        "H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 5/8] x86/uaccess: Provide untagged_addr() and remove
 tags before address check

On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 12:02:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 05:35:24PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> > +/*
> > + * Mask out tag bits from the address.
> > + *
> > + * Magic with the 'sign' allows to untag userspace pointer without any branches
> > + * while leaving kernel addresses intact.
> > + */
> > +#define untagged_addr(mm, addr)	({					\
> > +	u64 __addr = (__force u64)(addr);				\
> > +	s64 sign = (s64)__addr >> 63;					\
> > +	__addr ^= sign;							\
> > +	__addr &= (mm)->context.untag_mask;				\
> > +	__addr ^= sign;							\
> > +	(__force __typeof__(addr))__addr;				\
> > +})
> 
> Can't we make that mask a constant and *always* unmask U57 irrespective
> of LAM being on?

We can do this if we give up on LAM_U48.

It would also needlessly relax canonical check. I'm not sure it is a good
idea.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov