linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/mm/iommu/sva: Do not allow to set FORCE_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: <CACT4Y+Z-2qbTSuPYAumg+TU8xnx4-yF1CQ46_D4=wjTebpQKDA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Apr 2023 16:46:18 +0200
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
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>,
        "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>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/mm/iommu/sva: Do not allow to set
 FORCE_TAGGED_SVA bit from outside

On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 at 16:31, Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 03:55:09PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 at 13:10, Kirill A. Shutemov
> > <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > arch_prctl(ARCH_FORCE_TAGGED_SVA) overrides the default and allows LAM
> > > and SVA to co-exist in the process. It is expected by called by the
> > > process when it knows what it is doing.
> > >
> > > arch_prctl() operates on the current process, but the same code is
> > > reachable from ptrace where it can be called on arbitrary task.
> > >
> > > Make it strict and only allow to set MM_CONTEXT_FORCE_TAGGED_SVA for the
> > > current process.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
> > > Fixes: 23e5d9ec2bab ("x86/mm/iommu/sva: Make LAM and SVA mutually exclusive")
> > > Suggested-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c | 2 ++
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> > > index c7dfd727c9ec..cefac2d3a9f6 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> > > @@ -885,6 +885,8 @@ long do_arch_prctl_64(struct task_struct *task, int option, unsigned long arg2)
> > >         case ARCH_ENABLE_TAGGED_ADDR:
> > >                 return prctl_enable_tagged_addr(task->mm, arg2);
> > >         case ARCH_FORCE_TAGGED_SVA:
> > > +               if (current != task)
> > > +                       return -EINVAL;
> >
> > prctl_enable_tagged_addr() checks "task->mm != current->mm".
> > Should we check the same here for consistency? Or also change the
> > check in prctl_enable_tagged_addr().
> >
> > arch_prctl() can only do task==current, so I guess "current != task"
> > is a more reasonable check for prctl_enable_tagged_addr() as well.
>
> As of now, prctl_enable_tagged_addr() doesn't have the task on hands. It
> gets mm as input, so it cannot check the task directly. But functionally
> it is the same check.
>
> I would prefer to keep it this way. Unless anyone feels strongly about it.

Fine with me.

Reviewed-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>