linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv13 05/16] 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]

Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjUcjPboro_P5qeFuuwAyqPEDRH8BvX0UFU1hNRfx+6Kw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 7 Jan 2023 09:28:10 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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>,
        Taras Madan <tarasmadan@...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>,
        Bharata B Rao <bharata@....com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv13 05/16] x86/uaccess: Provide untagged_addr() and remove
 tags before address check

On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 1:10 AM Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 04:42:05PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > in ex_handler_uaccess() for the GP trap that users can now cause by
> > giving a non-canonical address with the high bit clear. So we'd
> > probably just want a new EX_TYPE_* for these cases, but that still
> > looks fairly straightforward.
>
> Plain _ASM_EXTABLE() seems does the trick.

Ack, for some reason I stupidly thought we'd have to change the
_ASM_EXTABLE_UA logic.

Thanks for setting me straight.

> Here's what I've come up with:

This looks good to me. And I like how you've used assembler macros
instead of the C preprocessor, it makes things more readable.

I'm personally so unused to asm macros that I never use them (and the
same is obviously true of Christoph who did that previous task size
thing), but I can appreciate others doing a better job at it.

So ack on this from me (I assume you tested it - hopefully even with
LAM), but maybe the x86 maintainers disagree violently?

The one possible downside is that *if* somebody passes non-valid user
addresses to get/put_user() intentionally (expecting an EFAULT), we
will now handle that much more slowly with a fault. But it would have
to be some really crazy use-case, and the normal case should be
simpler and faster.

But honestly, to me the upside is mainly "no need to worry about LAM
masking in asm code".

               Linus