linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] arm64/mm/fault: use original FAR_EL1 value when ARM64_MTE

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: <aBT8BWqoljvcAU_w@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2025 18:08:21 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@....com>, Peter Collingbourne <pcc@...gle.com>
Cc: will@...nel.org, broonie@...nel.org, anshuman.khandual@....com,
	joey.gouly@....com, yury.khrustalev@....com, maz@...nel.org,
	oliver.upton@...ux.dev, frederic@...nel.org,
	shmeerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com, james.morse@....com,
	mark.rutland@....com, huangxiaojia2@...wei.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, surenb@...gle.com, robin.murphy@....com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, nd@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] arm64/mm/fault: use original FAR_EL1 value when
 ARM64_MTE_FAR is supported

+ Peter Collingbourne as he added the SA_EXPOSE_TAGBITS flag.

On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 08:47:20AM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> Use the original FAR_EL1 value when an MTE tag check fault occurs,
> if ARM64_MTE_FAR is supported.
> This allows reports to include not only the logical tag (memory tag)
> but also the address tag information.
> 
> Applications that require this information should install a signal handler with
> the SA_EXPOSE_TAGBITS flag.
> While this introduces a minor ABI change,
> most applications do not set this flag and therefore will not be affected.

It is indeed a minor ABI in that a tag check fault resulting in a
signal will report the bits 63:60 as well, not just 59:56 of the address
(if the signal handler was registered with SA_EXPOSE_TAGBITS).

I don't think user-space would notice but asking Peter.

> Signed-off-by: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@....com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/mm/fault.c | 7 +++++--
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> index ec0a337891dd..f21d972f99b1 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> @@ -837,9 +837,12 @@ static int do_tag_check_fault(unsigned long far, unsigned long esr,
>  	/*
>  	 * The architecture specifies that bits 63:60 of FAR_EL1 are UNKNOWN
>  	 * for tag check faults. Set them to corresponding bits in the untagged
> -	 * address.
> +	 * address if ARM64_MTE_FAR isn't supported.
> +	 * Otherwise, bits 63:60 of FAR_EL1 are KNOWN.
>  	 */
> -	far = (__untagged_addr(far) & ~MTE_TAG_MASK) | (far & MTE_TAG_MASK);
> +	if (!cpus_have_cap(ARM64_MTE_FAR))
> +		far = (__untagged_addr(far) & ~MTE_TAG_MASK) | (far & MTE_TAG_MASK);
> +
>  	do_bad_area(far, esr, regs);
>  	return 0;
>  }
> -- 
> LEVI:{C3F47F37-75D8-414A-A8BA-3980EC8A46D7}