[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:09:14 -0700
From: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
René Nyffenegger <mail@...enyffenegger.ch>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
Pavel Tikhomirov <ptikhomirov@...tuozzo.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] syscalls: Restore address limit after a syscall
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:12 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> * Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com> wrote:
>
>> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_NO_SYSCALL_VERIFY_PRE_USERMODE_STATE
>> >> +/*
>> >> + * This function is called when an architecture specific implementation detected
>> >> + * an invalid address limit. The generic user-mode state checker will finish on
>> >> + * the appropriate BUG_ON.
>> >> + */
>> >> +asmlinkage void address_limit_check_failed(void)
>> >> +{
>> >> + verify_pre_usermode_state();
>> >> + panic("address_limit_check_failed called with a valid user-mode state");
>> >
>> > It's very unconstructive to unconditionally panic the system, just because some
>> > kernel code leaked the address limit! Do a warn-once printout and kill the current
>> > task (i.e. don't continue execution), but don't crash everything else!
>>
>> The original change did not crash the kernel for this exact reason.
>> Through reviews, there was an overall agreement that the kernel should
>> not continue in this state.
>
> Ok, I guess we can try that - but the panic message is still pretty misleading:
>
> panic("address_limit_check_failed called with a valid user-mode state");
>
> ... so it was called with a _valid_ user-mode state, and we crash due to something
> valid? Huh?
Yes the message is accurate but I agree that it is misleading and I
will improve it. The address_limit_check_failed function is called by
assembly code on different architectures once the state was detected
as invalid. Instead of crashing at different places, we redirect to
the generic handler (verify_pre_usermode_state) that will crash on the
appropriate BUG_ON line. The address_limit_check_failed function is
not supposed to comeback, the panic call is just a safe guard.
>
> ( Also, the style rule applies to kernel messages as well: function names should
> be referred to as "function_name()". )
Will change.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
--
Thomas
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.
