linux-kernel - [PATCH v6 2/4] arm64: amu: Delay allocating cpumask for AMU FIE support

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: <20240603082154.3830591-3-beata.michalska@arm.com>
Date: Mon,  3 Jun 2024 09:21:52 +0100
From: Beata Michalska <beata.michalska@....com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	ionela.voinescu@....com,
	sudeep.holla@....com,
	will@...nel.org,
	catalin.marinas@....com,
	vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
	vanshikonda@...amperecomputing.com
Cc: sumitg@...dia.com,
	yang@...amperecomputing.com,
	lihuisong@...wei.com,
	viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
	rafael@...nel.org
Subject: [PATCH v6 2/4] arm64: amu: Delay allocating cpumask for AMU FIE support

For the time being, the amu_fie_cpus cpumask is being exclusively used
by the AMU-related internals of FIE support and is guaranteed to be
valid on every access currently made. Still the mask is not being
invalidated on one of the error handling code paths, which leaves
a soft spot with theoretical risk of uaf for CPUMASK_OFFSTACK cases.
To make things sound, delay allocating said cpumask
(for CPUMASK_OFFSTACK) avoiding otherwise nasty sanitising case failing
to register the cpufreq policy notifications.

Signed-off-by: Beata Michalska <beata.michalska@....com>
---
 arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 22 +++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
index 1a2c72f3e7f8..e475ec2705e1 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
@@ -194,11 +194,16 @@ static void amu_fie_setup(const struct cpumask *cpus)
 	int cpu;
 
 	/* We are already set since the last insmod of cpufreq driver */
-	if (unlikely(cpumask_subset(cpus, amu_fie_cpus)))
-		return;
+	if (cpumask_available(amu_fie_cpus) &&
+	    unlikely(cpumask_subset(cpus, amu_fie_cpus)))
+	    return;
 
 	for_each_cpu(cpu, cpus) {
-		if (!freq_counters_valid(cpu))
+	    if (!cpumask_available(amu_fie_cpus) &&
+	        !zalloc_cpumask_var(&amu_fie_cpus, GFP_KERNEL))
+	        return;
+
+	    if (!freq_counters_valid(cpu))
 			return;
 	}
 
@@ -237,17 +242,8 @@ static struct notifier_block init_amu_fie_notifier = {
 
 static int __init init_amu_fie(void)
 {
-	int ret;
-
-	if (!zalloc_cpumask_var(&amu_fie_cpus, GFP_KERNEL))
-		return -ENOMEM;
-
-	ret = cpufreq_register_notifier(&init_amu_fie_notifier,
+	return cpufreq_register_notifier(&init_amu_fie_notifier,
 					CPUFREQ_POLICY_NOTIFIER);
-	if (ret)
-		free_cpumask_var(amu_fie_cpus);
-
-	return ret;
 }
 core_initcall(init_amu_fie);
 
-- 
2.25.1