linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv4 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: <20220712171445.74b46mgdxgaub3qj@black.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Jul 2022 20:14:45 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.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 Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 6/8] x86/mm: Provide ARCH_GET_UNTAG_MASK and
 ARCH_ENABLE_TAGGED_ADDR

On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 03:12:01PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 6:22 PM Kirill A. Shutemov
> <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Add a couple of arch_prctl() handles:
> >
> >  - ARCH_ENABLE_TAGGED_ADDR enabled LAM. The argument is required number
> >    of tag bits. It is rounded up to the nearest LAM mode that can
> >    provide it. For now only LAM_U57 is supported, with 6 tag bits.
> >
> >  - ARCH_GET_UNTAG_MASK returns untag mask. It can indicates where tag
> >    bits located in the address.
> >
> Am I right that the desired way to detect the presence of LAM without
> enabling it is to check that arch_prctl(ARCH_GET_UNTAG_MASK, ...)
> returns zero?

Returns -1UL, but yes.

> Overall, I think these new arch_prctls should be documented following
> the spirit of PR_SET_TAGGED_ADDR_CTRL/PR_GET_TAGGED_ADDR_CTRL
> somewhere.

The plan is to update man page for the syscall once the interface is
upstream.

> > +
> > +static int prctl_enable_tagged_addr(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long nr_bits)
> > +{
> > +       int ret = 0;
> > +
> > +       if (!cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_LAM))
> > +               return -ENODEV;
> > +
> > +       mutex_lock(&mm->context.lock);
> > +
> > +       /* Already enabled? */
> > +       if (mm->context.lam_cr3_mask) {
> > +               ret = -EBUSY;
> > +               goto out;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       if (!nr_bits) {
> > +               ret = -EINVAL;
> 
> One would expect that `arch_prctl(ARCH_ENABLE_TAGGED_ADDR, 0)`
> disables tagging for the current process.
> Shouldn't this workflow be supported as well?

Is there an use-case for it?

I would rather keep the interface minimal. We can always add this in the
future if an use-case comes.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov