|
Message-Id: <20171026090942.7041-3-mark.rutland@arm.com> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:09:42 +0100 From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> To: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> Subject: [RFC PATCH 2/2] arm64: allow paranoid __{get,put}user Now that the compiler can identify redundant access_ok() checks, we can make __get-user() and __put_user() BUG()-out if there wasn't a preceding access_ok() check. So long as that's in the same compilation unit, the compiler should be able to get rid of the redundant second check and BUG entry. This will allow us to catch __{get,put}_user() calls which did not have a preceding access_ok() check, but may adversely affect a small number of callsites where GCC fails to spot that it can fold two access_ok() checks together. As these checks may impact performance and code size, they are only enabled when CONFIG_ARM64_PARANOID_UACCESS is selected. In testing with v4.14-rc5 with the Linaro 17.05 GCC 6.3.1 toolchain, this makes the kernel Image ~4KiB bigger, and the vmlinux ~93k bigger. I have no performance numbers so far. Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> Cc: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> --- arch/arm64/Kconfig | 9 +++++++++ arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h | 8 ++++++++ 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+) diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig index 0df64a6a56d4..34df81acda8e 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig @@ -1028,6 +1028,15 @@ config RANDOMIZE_MODULE_REGION_FULL a limited range that contains the [_stext, _etext] interval of the core kernel, so branch relocations are always in range. +config ARM64_PARANOID_UACCESS + bool "Use paranoid uaccess primitives" + help + Forces access_ok() checks in __get_user(), __put_user(), and other + low-level uaccess primitives which usually do not have checks. This + can limit the effect of missing access_ok() checks in higher-level + primitives, with a runtime performance overhead in some cases and a + small code size overhead. + endmenu menu "Boot options" diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h index 36f84ec92b9d..dbe8dfd46ceb 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h @@ -195,6 +195,12 @@ static inline void uaccess_enable_not_uao(void) __uaccess_enable(ARM64_ALT_PAN_NOT_UAO); } +#define verify_uaccess(dir, ptr) \ +({ \ + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_PARANOID_UACCESS)) \ + BUG_ON(!access_ok(dir, (ptr), sizeof(*(ptr)))); \ +}) + /* * The "__xxx" versions of the user access functions do not verify the address * space - it must have been done previously with a separate "access_ok()" @@ -222,6 +228,7 @@ static inline void uaccess_enable_not_uao(void) do { \ unsigned long __gu_val; \ __chk_user_ptr(ptr); \ + verify_uaccess(VERIFY_READ, ptr); \ uaccess_enable_not_uao(); \ switch (sizeof(*(ptr))) { \ case 1: \ @@ -287,6 +294,7 @@ do { \ do { \ __typeof__(*(ptr)) __pu_val = (x); \ __chk_user_ptr(ptr); \ + verify_uaccess(VERIFY_WRITE, ptr); \ uaccess_enable_not_uao(); \ switch (sizeof(*(ptr))) { \ case 1: \ -- 2.11.0
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.