[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170719183543.GT31807@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 19:35:43 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@....com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
Pratyush Anand <panand@...hat.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@....com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.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,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v10 2/3] arm/syscalls: Check
address limit on user-mode return
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:20:35AM -0700, Thomas Garnier wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> <linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 05:58:20PM +0300, Leonard Crestez wrote:
> > Probably best to revert. I stopped looking at these patches during
> > the discussion, as the discussion seemed to be mainly around other
> > architectures, and I thought we had ARM settled.
> >
> > Looking at this patch now, there's several things I'm not happy with.
> >
> > The effect of adding a the new TIF flag for FSCHECK amongst the other
> > flags is that we end up overflowing the 8-bit constant, and have to
> > split the tests, meaning more instructions in the return path. Eg:
> >
> > - tst r1, #_TIF_SYSCALL_WORK | _TIF_WORK_MASK
> > + tst r1, #_TIF_SYSCALL_WORK
> > + bne fast_work_pending
> > + tst r1, #_TIF_WORK_MASK
> > bne fast_work_pending
> >
> > should be written:
> >
> > tst r1, #_TIF_SYSCALL_WORK
> > tsteq r1, #_TIF_WORK_MASK
> > bne fast_work_pending
> >
> > and:
> >
> > - tst r1, #_TIF_SYSCALL_WORK | _TIF_WORK_MASK
> > + tst r1, #_TIF_SYSCALL_WORK
> > + bne fast_work_pending
> > + tst r1, #_TIF_WORK_MASK
> >
> > should be:
> >
> > tst r1, #_TIF_SYSCALL_WORK
> > tsteq r1, #_TIF_WORK_MASK
> >
> > There's no need for extra branches.
> >
> > Now, the next issue is that I don't think this TIF-flag approach is
> > good for ARM - alignment faults can happen any time due to misaligned
> > packets in the networking code, and we really don't want to be doing
> > this check in a place that we can loop.
> >
> > My original suggestion for ARM was to do the address limit check after
> > all work had been processed, with interrupts disabled (so no
> > possibility of this kind of loop happening.) However, that seems to
> > have been replaced with this TIF approach, which is going to cause
> > loops - I suspect if the probes code is enabled, this will suffer
> > the same problem. Remember, the various probes stuff can walk
> > userspace stacks, which means they'll be using set_fs().
> >
> > I don't see why we've ended up with this (imho) sub-standard TIF-flag
> > approach, and I think it's going to be very problematical.
> >
> > Can we please go back to the approach I suggested back in March for
> > ARM that doesn't suffer from this problem?
>
> During the extensive thread discussion, Linus asked to move away from
> architecture specific changes to this work flag system. I am glad to
> fix the assembly as you asked on a separate patch.
Well, for the record, I don't think you've got to the bottom of the
"infinite loop" potential of Linus' approach.
Eg, perf will likely trigger this same issue. Eg, perf record -a -g
will attempt to record the callchain both in kernel space and userspace
each time a perf interrupt happens. If the perf interrupt frequency is
sufficiently high that we have multiple interrupts during the execution
of do_work_pending() and its called functions, then that will turn this
into an infinite loop yet again.
--
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
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.
