linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] uaccess: always export _copy_[from|to]_user with CONFIG

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: <CAH5fLggZc_Fxi1gjx9jxGDgyYOj1NLz5MYxzRxEja6vV0WffGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 11:51:36 +0100
From: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, 
	Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, 
	Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, 
	Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>, 
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>, 
	Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>, Martijn Coenen <maco@...roid.com>, 
	Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@...gle.com>, 
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, 
	Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] uaccess: always export _copy_[from|to]_user with CONFIG_RUST

On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 1:15 AM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 03:47:52PM +0000, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> >       unsigned long res = n;
> >       might_fault();
> >       if (!should_fail_usercopy() && likely(access_ok(from, n))) {
> > +             /*
> > +              * Ensure that bad access_ok() speculation will not
> > +              * lead to nasty side effects *after* the copy is
> > +              * finished:
> > +              */
> > +             barrier_nospec();
>
> This means all callers just gained this barrier. That's a behavioral
> change -- is it intentional here? I don't see it mentioned in the commit
> log.
>
> Also did this get tested with the CONFIG_TEST_USER_COPY tests? I would
> expect it to be fine, but better to check and mention it in the commit
> log.

I just ran this with CONFIG_TEST_USER_COPY on x86 using the Android
cuttlefish emulator and it passed there. I also verified that it fails
if I remove the access_ok check. However, the tests succeed even if
the barrier_nospec() call is removed.

That said, it seems like it fails to compile on some other platforms.
It seems like we need to add #include <linux/nospec.h> to uaccess.h to
fix it.

Alice