linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: Remove broken vsyscall emulation code from the page fault code

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: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 11:47:40 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>, 
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>, 
	syzbot <syzbot+83e7f982ca045ab4405c@...kaller.appspotmail.com>, 
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>, andrii@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: Remove broken vsyscall emulation code from the
 page fault code

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 at 08:51, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Well, Hilf had it go through the syzbot testing, and Jiri seems to
> have tested it on his setup too, so it looks like it's all good, and
> you can change the "Not-Yet-Signed-off-by" to be a proper sign-off
> from me.

Side note: having looked more at this, I suspect we have room for
further cleanups in this area.

In particular, I think the page fault emulation code should be moved
from do_user_addr_fault() to do_kern_addr_fault(), and the horrible
hack that is fault_in_kernel_space() should be removed (it is what now
makes a vsyscall page fault be treated as a user address, and the only
_reason_ for that is that we do the vsyscall handling in the wrong
place).

I also think that the vsyscall emulation code should just be cleaned
up - instead of looking up the system call number and then calling the
__x64_xyz() system call stub, I think we should just write out the
code in-place. That would get the SIGSEGV cases right too, and I think
it would actually clean up the code. We already do almost everything
but the (trivial) low-level ops anyway.

But I think my patch to remove the 'sig_on_uaccess_err' should just go
in first, since it fixes a real and present issue. And then if
somebody has the energy - or if it turns out that we actually need to
get the SIGSEGV siginfo details right - we can do the other cleanups.
They are mostly unrelated, but the current sig_on_uaccess_err code
just makes everything more complicated and needs to go.

                     Linus