linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 5/5] arm64: futex: support futex with FEAT

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: <aKQ4HvqZa_7Q7oDu@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2025 09:38:54 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@....com>
Cc: will@...nel.org, broonie@...nel.org, maz@...nel.org,
	oliver.upton@...ux.dev, shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com,
	joey.gouly@....com, james.morse@....com, ardb@...nel.org,
	scott@...amperecomputing.com, suzuki.poulose@....com,
	yuzenghui@...wei.com, mark.rutland@....com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/5] arm64: futex: support futex with FEAT_LSUI

On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 08:53:57PM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 03:57:49PM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> > > why we need to care about the different settings for tag checking when
> > > we use uaccess_disable_privileged()?
[...]
> > > But, although tag check fault happens in kernel side,
> > > It seems to be handled by fixup code if user address is wrong.
> >
> > The user may know it is wrong and not care (e.g. one wants to keep using
> > a buggy application).
> 
> Then Does this example -- ignoring wrong and keep using a buggy
> application shows us that we need to enable TCO when
> we runs the LSUI instruction?
> 
> AFAIK, LSUI instruction also check memory tag -- i.e) ldtadd.
> if passed user address which has unmatched tag and if user isn't
> interested in tah check, It can meet the unexpected report from KASAN.

That's a valid point w.r.t. PSTATE.TCO that applies to copy_to/from_user
as well. I don't think we documented it but we don't expect the user
PSTATE.TCO state to be taken into account while doing uaccess from the
kernel. We do, however, expect SCTLR_EL1.TCF0 to be honoured and that's
what the user normally tweaks via a prctl(). The TCO is meant to
disable tag checking briefly when TCF enabled the tag check faults.

-- 
Catalin