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]

Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 13:51:42 +0000
From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
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 01:09:51PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> 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.

For the bitmasks, we'd be saving (512 - 16) / 8 = 62 bytes for each of
SVE and SME (I think).

The tradeoff really didn't seem worth it...

> 
> > 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.

OK, but we still seem to have two competing approaches: clamp SVE_VQ_MAX
for kernel internal purposes, or restore the dynamic sizing of
NT_ARM_SVE based on the new regset core behaviour.

Are you saying we should or both, or otherwise which one?

Cheers
---Dave