kernel-hardening - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/8] thread_info: allow custom in-task thread

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

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

Message-ID: <20160921102827.GC18176@leverpostej>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 11:28:27 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, james.morse@....com,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	lorenzo.pieralisi@....com, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	suzuki.poulose@....com,
	Takahiro Akashi <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/8] thread_info: allow custom in-task thread_info

Hi Andy,

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 08:11:14AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:37:47AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > Just to check, what do you mean to happen with the flags field? Should
> > that always be in the generic thread_info? e.g.
> >
> > struct thread_info {
> >         u32 flags;
> > #ifdef arch_thread_info
> >         struct arch_thread_info arch_ti;
> > #endif
> > };
> 
> Exactly.  Possibly with a comment that using thread_struct should be
> preferred and that arch_thread_info should be used only if some header
> file requires access via current_thread_info() or task_thread_info().

While fixing up these patches, I realised that I'm somewhat concerned by 
flags becoming a u32 (where it was previously an unsigned long for
arm64).

The generic {test,set,*}_ti_thread_flag() helpers use the usual bitops,
which perform accesses of sizeof(unsigned long) at a time, and for arm64
these need to be naturally-aligned.

We happen to get that alignment from subsequent fields in task_struct
and/or thread_info, and for arm64 we don't seem to have a problem with
tearing, but it feels somewhat fragile, and leaves me uneasy.

Looking at the git log, it seems that x86 also use unsigned long until
commit affa219b60a11b32 ("x86: change thread_info's flag field back to
32 bits"), where if I'm reading correctly, this was done to get rid of
unnecessary padding. With THREAD_INFO_IN_STACK, thread_info::flags is
immediately followed by a long on x86, so we save no padding.

Given all that, can we make the generic thread_info::flags an unsigned
long, matching what the thread flag helpers implicitly assume?

Thanks,
Mark.

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