kernel-hardening - Re: [PATCH v8 1/4] syscalls: Verify address limit before returning to user-mode

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

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

Message-ID: <20170428063323.ntnc4tk7do2dor76@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 08:33:23 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>
Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	René Nyffenegger <mail@...enyffenegger.ch>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Pavel Tikhomirov <ptikhomirov@...tuozzo.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
	linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/4] syscalls: Verify address limit before returning
 to user-mode


* Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com> wrote:

> > BTW., a further simplification would be:
> >
> > #ifndef ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK_PRE
> > # define ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK_PRE ...
> > #endif
> >
> > This way architectures could override this generic functionality simply by
> > defining the helpers. Architectures that don't do that get the generic version.
> 
> I don't think architectures need to do that. The optimizations are
> embedding the checks on their architecture-specific code to make it
> faster and remove the size impact. The pre/post is fine for the rest.

Indeed, only the generic code needs to turn off that code - architectures will 
place these callbacks elsewhere.

Thanks,

	Ingo

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