Message ID | 20170309012456.5631-4-thgarnie@google.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 05:24:56PM -0800, Thomas Garnier wrote: > Implement specific usage of verify_pre_usermode_state for user-mode > returns for arm64. > --- > Based on next-20170308 > --- > arch/arm64/Kconfig | 1 + > arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S | 15 +++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > index 896eba61e5ed..da54774838d8 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ config ARM64 > select ARCH_WANT_COMPAT_IPC_PARSE_VERSION > select ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS > select ARCH_HAS_UBSAN_SANITIZE_ALL > + select ARCH_NO_SYSCALL_VERIFY_PRE_USERMODE_STATE > select ARM_AMBA > select ARM_ARCH_TIMER > select ARM_GIC > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S > index 43512d4d7df2..eca392ae63e9 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S > @@ -737,6 +737,19 @@ ENTRY(cpu_switch_to) > ret > ENDPROC(cpu_switch_to) > > +#ifdef CONFIG_BUG_ON_DATA_CORRUPTION > +.macro VERIFY_PRE_USERMODE_STATE > + bl verify_pre_usermode_state > +.endm > +#else We generally stick to lower case for the arm64 assembly macros. If we need this, we should stick to the existing convention. > +/* Similar to set_fs(USER_DS) in verify_pre_usermode_state without a warning. */ > +.macro VERIFY_PRE_USERMODE_STATE > + mov x1, #TASK_SIZE_64 > + str x1, [tsk, #TSK_TI_ADDR_LIMIT] > +.endm We need arm64's set_fs() to configure UAO, too, so this is much weaker than set_fs(), and will leave __{get,put}_user and __copy_{to,from}_user() able to access kernel memory. We don't currently have an asm helper to clear UAO, and unconditionally poking that on exception return is liable to be somewhat expensive. Also, given we're only trying to catch this in syscalls, I'm afraid I don't see what we gain by doing this in the entry assembly. Thanks, Mark. > +#endif > + > + > /* > * This is the fast syscall return path. We do as little as possible here, > * and this includes saving x0 back into the kernel stack. > @@ -744,6 +757,7 @@ ENDPROC(cpu_switch_to) > ret_fast_syscall: > disable_irq // disable interrupts > str x0, [sp, #S_X0] // returned x0 > + VERIFY_PRE_USERMODE_STATE > ldr x1, [tsk, #TSK_TI_FLAGS] // re-check for syscall tracing > and x2, x1, #_TIF_SYSCALL_WORK > cbnz x2, ret_fast_syscall_trace > @@ -771,6 +785,7 @@ work_pending: > */ > ret_to_user: > disable_irq // disable interrupts > + VERIFY_PRE_USERMODE_STATE > ldr x1, [tsk, #TSK_TI_FLAGS] > and x2, x1, #_TIF_WORK_MASK > cbnz x2, work_pending > -- > 2.12.0.246.ga2ecc84866-goog >
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote: > We generally stick to lower case for the arm64 assembly macros. If we > need this, we should stick to the existing convention. > >> +/* Similar to set_fs(USER_DS) in verify_pre_usermode_state without a warning. */ >> +.macro VERIFY_PRE_USERMODE_STATE >> + mov x1, #TASK_SIZE_64 >> + str x1, [tsk, #TSK_TI_ADDR_LIMIT] >> +.endm > > We need arm64's set_fs() to configure UAO, too, so this is much weaker > than set_fs(), and will leave __{get,put}_user and > __copy_{to,from}_user() able to access kernel memory. > > We don't currently have an asm helper to clear UAO, and unconditionally > poking that on exception return is liable to be somewhat expensive. > > Also, given we're only trying to catch this in syscalls, I'm afraid I > don't see what we gain by doing this in the entry assembly. > I optimized all architectures from the arm (32-bit) discussion. I will come back to a simple bl to the verify function. Thanks!
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 07:56:49AM -0800, Thomas Garnier wrote: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote: > > We generally stick to lower case for the arm64 assembly macros. If we > > need this, we should stick to the existing convention. > > > >> +/* Similar to set_fs(USER_DS) in verify_pre_usermode_state without a warning. */ > >> +.macro VERIFY_PRE_USERMODE_STATE > >> + mov x1, #TASK_SIZE_64 > >> + str x1, [tsk, #TSK_TI_ADDR_LIMIT] > >> +.endm > > > > We need arm64's set_fs() to configure UAO, too, so this is much weaker > > than set_fs(), and will leave __{get,put}_user and > > __copy_{to,from}_user() able to access kernel memory. > > > > We don't currently have an asm helper to clear UAO, and unconditionally > > poking that on exception return is liable to be somewhat expensive. > > > > Also, given we're only trying to catch this in syscalls, I'm afraid I > > don't see what we gain by doing this in the entry assembly. > > I optimized all architectures from the arm (32-bit) discussion. I will > come back to a simple bl to the verify function. Thanks! What I was trying to ask was do we need to touch the assembly at all here? Are we trying to protect the non-syscall cases by doing this in assembly? If so, it'd be worth calling out in the commit message. If so, we could add the necessary helper to clear UAO. If not, doing this in the entry assembly only saves the small overhead of reading and comparing the addr_limit for in-kernel use of the syscalls (e.g. in the compat wrappers), and we may as well rely on the common !ARCH_NO_SYSCALL_VERIFY_PRE_USERMODE_STATE implementation. Thanks, Mark.
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 07:56:49AM -0800, Thomas Garnier wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote: >> > We generally stick to lower case for the arm64 assembly macros. If we >> > need this, we should stick to the existing convention. >> > >> >> +/* Similar to set_fs(USER_DS) in verify_pre_usermode_state without a warning. */ >> >> +.macro VERIFY_PRE_USERMODE_STATE >> >> + mov x1, #TASK_SIZE_64 >> >> + str x1, [tsk, #TSK_TI_ADDR_LIMIT] >> >> +.endm >> > >> > We need arm64's set_fs() to configure UAO, too, so this is much weaker >> > than set_fs(), and will leave __{get,put}_user and >> > __copy_{to,from}_user() able to access kernel memory. >> > >> > We don't currently have an asm helper to clear UAO, and unconditionally >> > poking that on exception return is liable to be somewhat expensive. >> > >> > Also, given we're only trying to catch this in syscalls, I'm afraid I >> > don't see what we gain by doing this in the entry assembly. >> >> I optimized all architectures from the arm (32-bit) discussion. I will >> come back to a simple bl to the verify function. Thanks! > > What I was trying to ask was do we need to touch the assembly at all > here? You don't but he generic solution add code to every single syscall. > Are we trying to protect the non-syscall cases by doing this in > assembly? If so, it'd be worth calling out in the commit message. It is an added benefit but not required. > If so, we could add the necessary helper to clear UAO. I can look at set_fs and fix it on the next iteraiton. > If not, doing this in the entry assembly only saves the small overhead > of reading and comparing the addr_limit for in-kernel use of the > syscalls (e.g. in the compat wrappers), and we may as well rely on the > common !ARCH_NO_SYSCALL_VERIFY_PRE_USERMODE_STATE implementation. You also don't have the code added for each syscall and a call. > > Thanks, > Mark.
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 07:56:49AM -0800, Thomas Garnier wrote: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote: > > We generally stick to lower case for the arm64 assembly macros. If we > > need this, we should stick to the existing convention. > > > >> +/* Similar to set_fs(USER_DS) in verify_pre_usermode_state without a warning. */ > >> +.macro VERIFY_PRE_USERMODE_STATE > >> + mov x1, #TASK_SIZE_64 > >> + str x1, [tsk, #TSK_TI_ADDR_LIMIT] > >> +.endm > > > > We need arm64's set_fs() to configure UAO, too, so this is much weaker > > than set_fs(), and will leave __{get,put}_user and > > __copy_{to,from}_user() able to access kernel memory. > > > > We don't currently have an asm helper to clear UAO, and unconditionally > > poking that on exception return is liable to be somewhat expensive. > > > > Also, given we're only trying to catch this in syscalls, I'm afraid I > > don't see what we gain by doing this in the entry assembly. > > > > I optimized all architectures from the arm (32-bit) discussion. I will > come back to a simple bl to the verify function. Thanks! I wouldn't call what you've done on ARM an "optimisation", because my comment about making the fast path worthless still stands.
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 07:56:49AM -0800, Thomas Garnier wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote: >> > We generally stick to lower case for the arm64 assembly macros. If we >> > need this, we should stick to the existing convention. >> > >> >> +/* Similar to set_fs(USER_DS) in verify_pre_usermode_state without a warning. */ >> >> +.macro VERIFY_PRE_USERMODE_STATE >> >> + mov x1, #TASK_SIZE_64 >> >> + str x1, [tsk, #TSK_TI_ADDR_LIMIT] >> >> +.endm >> > >> > We need arm64's set_fs() to configure UAO, too, so this is much weaker >> > than set_fs(), and will leave __{get,put}_user and >> > __copy_{to,from}_user() able to access kernel memory. >> > >> > We don't currently have an asm helper to clear UAO, and unconditionally >> > poking that on exception return is liable to be somewhat expensive. >> > >> > Also, given we're only trying to catch this in syscalls, I'm afraid I >> > don't see what we gain by doing this in the entry assembly. >> > >> >> I optimized all architectures from the arm (32-bit) discussion. I will >> come back to a simple bl to the verify function. Thanks! > > I wouldn't call what you've done on ARM an "optimisation", because my > comment about making the fast path worthless still stands. Why does it still stands on the latest proposal? > > -- > 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.
diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig index 896eba61e5ed..da54774838d8 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ config ARM64 select ARCH_WANT_COMPAT_IPC_PARSE_VERSION select ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS select ARCH_HAS_UBSAN_SANITIZE_ALL + select ARCH_NO_SYSCALL_VERIFY_PRE_USERMODE_STATE select ARM_AMBA select ARM_ARCH_TIMER select ARM_GIC diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S index 43512d4d7df2..eca392ae63e9 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S @@ -737,6 +737,19 @@ ENTRY(cpu_switch_to) ret ENDPROC(cpu_switch_to) +#ifdef CONFIG_BUG_ON_DATA_CORRUPTION +.macro VERIFY_PRE_USERMODE_STATE + bl verify_pre_usermode_state +.endm +#else +/* Similar to set_fs(USER_DS) in verify_pre_usermode_state without a warning. */ +.macro VERIFY_PRE_USERMODE_STATE + mov x1, #TASK_SIZE_64 + str x1, [tsk, #TSK_TI_ADDR_LIMIT] +.endm +#endif + + /* * This is the fast syscall return path. We do as little as possible here, * and this includes saving x0 back into the kernel stack. @@ -744,6 +757,7 @@ ENDPROC(cpu_switch_to) ret_fast_syscall: disable_irq // disable interrupts str x0, [sp, #S_X0] // returned x0 + VERIFY_PRE_USERMODE_STATE ldr x1, [tsk, #TSK_TI_FLAGS] // re-check for syscall tracing and x2, x1, #_TIF_SYSCALL_WORK cbnz x2, ret_fast_syscall_trace @@ -771,6 +785,7 @@ work_pending: */ ret_to_user: disable_irq // disable interrupts + VERIFY_PRE_USERMODE_STATE ldr x1, [tsk, #TSK_TI_FLAGS] and x2, x1, #_TIF_WORK_MASK cbnz x2, work_pending