[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJcbSZGYC4cKqyYDXh9LvDctnrGZGxxTSTmtaxMAipQgZ8A-pQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:14:34 -0700
From: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Pavel Tikhomirov <ptikhomirov@...tuozzo.com>, linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
René Nyffenegger <mail@...enyffenegger.ch>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>, Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/4] arm64/syscalls: Specific usage of verify_pre_usermode_state
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Catalin Marinas
<catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 07:36:17AM -0700, Thomas Garnier wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 7:22 AM, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 10:47:27AM -0700, Thomas Garnier wrote:
>> >> +
>> >> ldr x1, [tsk, #TSK_TI_FLAGS]
>> >> and x2, x1, #_TIF_WORK_MASK
>> >> cbnz x2, work_pending
>> >> @@ -779,6 +788,12 @@ finish_ret_to_user:
>> >> kernel_exit 0
>> >> ENDPROC(ret_to_user)
>> >>
>> >> +addr_limit_fail:
>> >> + stp x0, lr, [sp,#-16]!
>> >> + bl asm_verify_pre_usermode_state
>> >> + ldp x0, lr, [sp],#16
>> >> + ret lr
>> >
>> > Where is this supposed to return? What is the value of lr when branching
>> > to addr_limit_fail?
>>
>> It is not supposed to return. Do you think I should remove stp, ldp,
>> ret and jut add a brk 0x100 or jmp/call a break/bug function?
>
> Can you not just make addr_limit_fail a C function which never returns
> (similar to what we to with bad_mode() on arm64)? Since addr_limit_fail
> is only called when the segment is not the right one, I don't really see
> why you need another call to asm_verify_pre_usermode_state() to do a
> similar check again. Just panic in addr_limit_fail (unless I
> misunderstood what you are trying to achieve).
Calling asm_verify_pre_usermode_state has the advantage of having a
clear BUG_ON for the error (versus a panic description).
What do you think about replacing asm_verify_pre_usermode_state by a
"address_limit_fail" function that still calls
verify_pre_usermode_state but panic afterwards (because it should
never return)?
The assembly code would be easier to understand and in case of error
the BUG_ON is clear for the user.
>
> --
> Catalin
--
Thomas
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.
