Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 07:28:02 +0200 From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, René Nyffenegger <mail@...enyffenegger.ch>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, 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>, 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" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v9 1/4] syscalls: Verify address limit before returning to user-mode On Thu, 11 May 2017 16:44:07 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com> wrote: > > > > Ingo: Do you want the change as-is? Would you like it to be optional? > > What do you think? > > I'm not ingo, but I don't like that patch. It's in the wrong place - > that system call return code is too timing-critical to add address > limit checks. > > Now what I think you *could* do is: > > - make "set_fs()" actually set a work flag in the current thread flags > > - do the test in the slow-path (syscall_return_slowpath). > > Yes, yes, that ends up being architecture-specific, but it's fairly simple. > > And it only slows down the system calls that actually use "set_fs()". > Sure, it will slow those down a fair amount, but they are hopefully a > small subset of all cases. > > How does that sound to people? Thats' where we currently do that > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING) && > WARN(irqs_disabled(), "syscall %ld left IRQs disabled", > regs->orig_ax)) > local_irq_enable(); > > check too, which is a fairly similar issue. This is exactly what Heiko did for the s390 backend as a result of this discussion. See the _CIF_ASCE_SECONDARY bit in arch/s390/kernel/entry.S, for the hot patch the check for the bit is included in the general _CIF_WORK test. Only the slow patch gets a bit slower. git commit b5a882fcf146c87cb6b67c6df353e1c042b8773d "s390: restore address space when returning to user space". -- blue skies, Martin. "Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
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.