[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 11:50:39 -0700
From: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@....com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
Pratyush Anand <panand@...hat.com>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@....com>, "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v10 2/3] arm/syscalls: Check
address limit on user-mode return
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:20:35AM -0700, Thomas Garnier wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
>> <linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 05:58:20PM +0300, Leonard Crestez wrote:
>> > Probably best to revert. I stopped looking at these patches during
>> > the discussion, as the discussion seemed to be mainly around other
>> > architectures, and I thought we had ARM settled.
>> >
>> > Looking at this patch now, there's several things I'm not happy with.
>> >
>> > The effect of adding a the new TIF flag for FSCHECK amongst the other
>> > flags is that we end up overflowing the 8-bit constant, and have to
>> > split the tests, meaning more instructions in the return path. Eg:
>> >
>> > - tst r1, #_TIF_SYSCALL_WORK | _TIF_WORK_MASK
>> > + tst r1, #_TIF_SYSCALL_WORK
>> > + bne fast_work_pending
>> > + tst r1, #_TIF_WORK_MASK
>> > bne fast_work_pending
>> >
>> > should be written:
>> >
>> > tst r1, #_TIF_SYSCALL_WORK
>> > tsteq r1, #_TIF_WORK_MASK
>> > bne fast_work_pending
>> >
>> > and:
>> >
>> > - tst r1, #_TIF_SYSCALL_WORK | _TIF_WORK_MASK
>> > + tst r1, #_TIF_SYSCALL_WORK
>> > + bne fast_work_pending
>> > + tst r1, #_TIF_WORK_MASK
>> >
>> > should be:
>> >
>> > tst r1, #_TIF_SYSCALL_WORK
>> > tsteq r1, #_TIF_WORK_MASK
>> >
>> > There's no need for extra branches.
>> >
>> > Now, the next issue is that I don't think this TIF-flag approach is
>> > good for ARM - alignment faults can happen any time due to misaligned
>> > packets in the networking code, and we really don't want to be doing
>> > this check in a place that we can loop.
>> >
>> > My original suggestion for ARM was to do the address limit check after
>> > all work had been processed, with interrupts disabled (so no
>> > possibility of this kind of loop happening.) However, that seems to
>> > have been replaced with this TIF approach, which is going to cause
>> > loops - I suspect if the probes code is enabled, this will suffer
>> > the same problem. Remember, the various probes stuff can walk
>> > userspace stacks, which means they'll be using set_fs().
>> >
>> > I don't see why we've ended up with this (imho) sub-standard TIF-flag
>> > approach, and I think it's going to be very problematical.
>> >
>> > Can we please go back to the approach I suggested back in March for
>> > ARM that doesn't suffer from this problem?
>>
>> During the extensive thread discussion, Linus asked to move away from
>> architecture specific changes to this work flag system. I am glad to
>> fix the assembly as you asked on a separate patch.
>
> Well, for the record, I don't think you've got to the bottom of the
> "infinite loop" potential of Linus' approach.
>
> Eg, perf will likely trigger this same issue. Eg, perf record -a -g
> will attempt to record the callchain both in kernel space and userspace
> each time a perf interrupt happens. If the perf interrupt frequency is
> sufficiently high that we have multiple interrupts during the execution
> of do_work_pending() and its called functions, then that will turn this
> into an infinite loop yet again.
Do you think it applies to the patch I just sent? The other approach
is to check at the entrance, ignore _TIF_FSCHECK on the loop and clear
it on exit.
>
> --
> RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
> FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
> according to speedtest.net.
--
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.
