[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:46:01 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>
cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Hoeun Ryu <hoeun.ryu@...il.com>,
PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>, Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC v2][PATCH 04/11] x86: Implement
__arch_rare_write_begin/unmap()
On Fri, 7 Apr 2017, Mathias Krause wrote:
> On 6 April 2017 at 17:59, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> >> static __always_inline rare_write_begin(void)
> >> {
> >> preempt_disable();
> >> local_irq_disable();
> >> barrier();
> >> __arch_rare_write_begin();
> >> barrier();
> >> }
> >
> > Looks good, except you don't need preempt_disable().
> > local_irq_disable() also disables preemption. You might need to use
> > local_irq_save(), though, depending on whether any callers already
> > have IRQs off.
>
> Well, doesn't look good to me. NMIs will still be able to interrupt
> this code and will run with CR0.WP = 0.
>
> Shouldn't you instead question yourself why PaX can do it "just" with
> preempt_disable() instead?!
That's silly. Just because PaX does it, doesn't mean it's correct. To be
honest, playing games with the CR0.WP bit is outright stupid to begin with.
Whether protected by preempt_disable or local_irq_disable, to make that
work it needs CR0 handling in the exception entry/exit at the lowest
level. And that's just a nightmare maintainence wise as it's prone to be
broken over time. Aside of that it's pointless overhead for the normal case.
The proper solution is:
write_rare(ptr, val)
{
mp = map_shadow_rw(ptr);
*mp = val;
unmap_shadow_rw(mp);
}
map_shadow_rw() is essentially the same thing as we do in the highmem case
where the kernel creates a shadow mapping of the user space pages via
kmap_atomic().
It's valid (at least on x86) to have a shadow map with the same page
attributes but write enabled. That does not require any fixups of CR0 and
just works.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
