[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:09:42 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: [RFC PATCH 2/2] arm64: allow paranoid __{get,put}user
Now that the compiler can identify redundant access_ok() checks, we can
make __get-user() and __put_user() BUG()-out if there wasn't a preceding
access_ok() check. So long as that's in the same compilation unit, the
compiler should be able to get rid of the redundant second check and BUG
entry.
This will allow us to catch __{get,put}_user() calls which did not have
a preceding access_ok() check, but may adversely affect a small number
of callsites where GCC fails to spot that it can fold two access_ok()
checks together.
As these checks may impact performance and code size, they are only
enabled when CONFIG_ARM64_PARANOID_UACCESS is selected.
In testing with v4.14-rc5 with the Linaro 17.05 GCC 6.3.1 toolchain,
this makes the kernel Image ~4KiB bigger, and the vmlinux ~93k bigger. I
have no performance numbers so far.
Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
---
arch/arm64/Kconfig | 9 +++++++++
arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h | 8 ++++++++
2 files changed, 17 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
index 0df64a6a56d4..34df81acda8e 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
@@ -1028,6 +1028,15 @@ config RANDOMIZE_MODULE_REGION_FULL
a limited range that contains the [_stext, _etext] interval of the
core kernel, so branch relocations are always in range.
+config ARM64_PARANOID_UACCESS
+ bool "Use paranoid uaccess primitives"
+ help
+ Forces access_ok() checks in __get_user(), __put_user(), and other
+ low-level uaccess primitives which usually do not have checks. This
+ can limit the effect of missing access_ok() checks in higher-level
+ primitives, with a runtime performance overhead in some cases and a
+ small code size overhead.
+
endmenu
menu "Boot options"
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
index 36f84ec92b9d..dbe8dfd46ceb 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
@@ -195,6 +195,12 @@ static inline void uaccess_enable_not_uao(void)
__uaccess_enable(ARM64_ALT_PAN_NOT_UAO);
}
+#define verify_uaccess(dir, ptr) \
+({ \
+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_PARANOID_UACCESS)) \
+ BUG_ON(!access_ok(dir, (ptr), sizeof(*(ptr)))); \
+})
+
/*
* The "__xxx" versions of the user access functions do not verify the address
* space - it must have been done previously with a separate "access_ok()"
@@ -222,6 +228,7 @@ static inline void uaccess_enable_not_uao(void)
do { \
unsigned long __gu_val; \
__chk_user_ptr(ptr); \
+ verify_uaccess(VERIFY_READ, ptr); \
uaccess_enable_not_uao(); \
switch (sizeof(*(ptr))) { \
case 1: \
@@ -287,6 +294,7 @@ do { \
do { \
__typeof__(*(ptr)) __pu_val = (x); \
__chk_user_ptr(ptr); \
+ verify_uaccess(VERIFY_WRITE, ptr); \
uaccess_enable_not_uao(); \
switch (sizeof(*(ptr))) { \
case 1: \
--
2.11.0
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.
