netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC] uaccess: user_access_begin_after_access

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:   Wed, 3 Jun 2020 01:29:00 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] uaccess: user_access_begin_after_access_ok()

On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 02:48:15AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 04:45:05AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > So vhost needs to poke at userspace *a lot* in a quick succession.  It
> > is thus benefitial to enable userspace access, do our thing, then
> > disable. Except access_ok has already been pre-validated with all the
> > relevant nospec checks, so we don't need that.  Add an API to allow
> > userspace access after access_ok and barrier_nospec are done.
> 
> BTW, what are you going to do about vq->iotlb != NULL case?  Because
> you sure as hell do *NOT* want e.g. translate_desc() under STAC.
> Disable it around the calls of translate_desc()?
> 
> How widely do you hope to stretch the user_access areas, anyway?

So ATM I'm looking at adding support for the packed ring format.
That does something like:


get_user(flags, desc->flags)
smp_rmb()
if (flags & VALID)
copy_from_user(&adesc, desc, sizeof adesc);


this would be a good candidate I think.






> BTW, speaking of possible annotations: looks like there's a large
> subset of call graph that can be reached only from vhost_worker()
> or from several ioctls, with all uaccess limited to that subgraph
> (thankfully).  Having that explicitly marked might be a good idea...

Sure. What's a good way to do that though? Any examples to follow?
Or do you mean code comments?


> Unrelated question, while we are at it: is there any point having
> vhost_get_user() a polymorphic macro?  In all callers the third
> argument is __virtio16 __user * and the second one is an explicit
> *<something> where <something> is __virtio16 *.  Similar for
> vhost_put_user(): in all callers the third arugment is
> __virtio16 __user * and the second - cpu_to_vhost16(vq, something).
> 
> Incidentally, who had come up with the name __vhost_get_user?
> Makes for lovey WTF moment for readers - esp. in vhost_put_user()...


Good points, I'll fix these.

-- 
MST