[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 11:42:02 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
Cc: "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>, andre.przywara@....com,
"Suzuki K. Poulose" <suzuki.poulose@....com>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] arm64: Privileged Access
Never using TTBR0_EL1 switching
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:20:45PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> Likewise, how do we handle __flush_cache_user_range and
>> flush_icache_range? Some callers (e.g. __do_compat_cache_op) pass in
>> __user addresses.
>
> Also EXEC_USERSPACE in lkdtm passes a user space address to flush_icache_range
> and causes the process to hang when I tested these patches on HiKey.
>
> Adding uaccess_{enable,disable}_not_uao to __flush_cache_user_range appears to
> fix the problem.
I had a thought just now on this: is lkdtm maybe doing the wrong thing
here? i.e. should lkdtm be the one do to the uaccess_en/disable
instead of flush_icache_range() itself, since it's the one abusing the
API?
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Nexus Security
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.
