linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64/sve: Lower the maximum allocation for the SVE ptrace regset

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: <ZcOBH7ip/KMhLYGO@finisterre.sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 13:09:51 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/sve: Lower the maximum allocation for the SVE
 ptrace regset

On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 12:23:56PM +0000, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 05:41:47PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 05:11:59PM +0000, Dave Martin wrote:

> > > If the kernel is now juggling two #defines for the maximum vector size,
> > > this feels like it may seed bitrot...

> > Ideally we'd just not have the existing define externally but it's there
> > and it's been used.

> To clarify, is this intended as a temporary band-aid against silly
> behaviour while a cleaner solution is found, or a permanent limitation?

Ideally we'd just make everything dynamic, other than the regset issue
and the bitmasks used for VL enumeration we're there already.  Making
the bitmasks dynamically sized is more painful but are also doing
enumeration that userspace doesn't need to do.

> We'd need to change various things if the architectural max VL actually
> grew, so no forward-portability is lost immediately if the kernel
> adopts 16 internally, but I'm still a little concerned that people may
> poke about in the kernel code as a reference and this will muddy the
> waters regarding how to do the right thing in userspace (I know people
> shouldn't, but...)

I think if we fix the ptrace regset issue we're doing a good enough job
of just using fully dynamic sizing with no limits other than what's been
enumerated there.  We could possibly deal with the enumberation code by
changing it to use ZCR/SMCR_ELx_LEN_ based defines so that it's
obviously coming from what we can possibly write to the register but
it's a bit less clear how to do that neatly.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)