kernel-hardening - Re: [PATCH 0/7] arm64: Privileged Access Never using TTBR0

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160815100838.GB13262@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 11:08:38 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
	Julien Grall <julien.grall@....com>,
	James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] arm64: Privileged Access Never
 using TTBR0_EL1 switching

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:02:33PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 15 August 2016 at 11:58, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 10:48:42AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >> On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 11:13:58AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> > On 12 August 2016 at 17:27, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
> >> > > This is the first (public) attempt at emulating PAN by disabling
> >> > > TTBR0_EL1 accesses on arm64.
> >> >
> >> > I take it using TCR_EL1.EPD0 is too expensive?
> >>
> >> It would require full TLB invalidation on entering/exiting the kernel
> >> and again for any user access. That's because the architecture allows
> >> this bit to be cached in the TLB so without TLBI we wouldn't have any
> >> guarantee that the actual PAN was toggled. I'm not sure it's even clear
> >> whether a TLBI by ASID or a local one would suffice (likely OK for the
> >> latter).
> >
> > It's worth noting that even ignoring the TLB-caching of TCR_EL1.EPD0, the
> > control only affects the behaviour on a TLB miss. Thus to use EPD0 we'd at
> > least need TLB invalidation by ASID to remove previously-allocated entries from
> > TLBs.
> >
> 
> ... or update the ASID to the reserved ASID in TTBR0_EL1, but leave
> the actual TTBR address alone.
> 
> This would remove the need for a zero page, and for recording the
> original TTBR address in a per-cpu variable.

Hmm, how does that work? The ASID and EPDx are in different registers,
so there's still a window where we could get speculative TLB fills.

Will

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.