[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVErxE5P=V4LD=kFCBtnp2YYEGRsbxhTG0SXJjrw6Yk1A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 08:59:00 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Hoeun Ryu <hoeun.ryu@...il.com>, PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>,
Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2][PATCH 04/11] x86: Implement __arch_rare_write_begin/unmap()
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>>>>> Based on PaX's x86 pax_{open,close}_kernel() implementation, this
>>>>> allows HAVE_ARCH_RARE_WRITE to work on x86.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static __always_inline unsigned long __arch_rare_write_begin(void)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + unsigned long cr0;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + preempt_disable();
>>>>
>>>> This looks wrong. DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(!irqs_disabled()) would work,
>>>> as would local_irq_disable(). There's no way that just disabling
>>>> preemption is enough.
>>>>
>>>> (Also, how does this interact with perf nmis?)
>>>
>>> Do you mean preempt_disable() isn't strong enough here? I'm open to
>>> suggestions. The goal would be to make sure nothing between _begin and
>>> _end would get executed without interruption...
>>>
>>
>> Sorry for the very slow response.
>>
>> preempt_disable() isn't strong enough to prevent interrupts, and an
>> interrupt here would run with WP off, causing unknown havoc. I tend
>> to think that the caller should be responsible for turning off
>> interrupts.
>
> So, something like:
>
> Top-level functions:
>
> static __always_inline rare_write_begin(void)
> {
> preempt_disable();
> local_irq_disable();
> barrier();
> __arch_rare_write_begin();
> barrier();
> }
Looks good, except you don't need preempt_disable().
local_irq_disable() also disables preemption. You might need to use
local_irq_save(), though, depending on whether any callers already
have IRQs off.
--Andy
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.
