All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@google.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
	Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>,
	Pratyush Anand <panand@redhat.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] arm64/syscalls: Move address limit check in loop
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 19:27:28 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170912182727.GB27652@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1504798247-48833-5-git-send-email-keescook@chromium.org>

Hi Kees,

On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 08:30:47AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> From: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@google.com>
> 
> A bug was reported on ARM where set_fs might be called after it was
> checked on the work pending function. ARM64 is not affected by this bug
> but has a similar construct. In order to avoid any similar problems in
> the future, the addr_limit_user_check function is moved at the beginning
> of the loop.
> 
> Fixes: cf7de27ab351 ("arm64/syscalls: Check address limit on user-mode return")
> Reported-by: Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@nxp.com>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

What's the plan for this series? It looks like somehow an old v2 of the
original series made it into mainline, so I'd like to see these fixes get
in ASAP. I'm still slightly nervous about pathological setting of the
FSCHECK flag due to e.g. a PMU IRQ causing a livelock in do_notify_resume,
but that's at least less likely with this fix :/

Will

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 4/4] arm64/syscalls: Move address limit check in loop
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 19:27:28 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170912182727.GB27652@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1504798247-48833-5-git-send-email-keescook@chromium.org>

Hi Kees,

On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 08:30:47AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> From: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@google.com>
> 
> A bug was reported on ARM where set_fs might be called after it was
> checked on the work pending function. ARM64 is not affected by this bug
> but has a similar construct. In order to avoid any similar problems in
> the future, the addr_limit_user_check function is moved at the beginning
> of the loop.
> 
> Fixes: cf7de27ab351 ("arm64/syscalls: Check address limit on user-mode return")
> Reported-by: Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@nxp.com>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

What's the plan for this series? It looks like somehow an old v2 of the
original series made it into mainline, so I'd like to see these fixes get
in ASAP. I'm still slightly nervous about pathological setting of the
FSCHECK flag due to e.g. a PMU IRQ causing a livelock in do_notify_resume,
but that's at least less likely with this fix :/

Will

  reply	other threads:[~2017-09-12 18:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-09-07 15:30 [PATCH 0/4] Fix check address limit on user-mode Kees Cook
2017-09-07 15:30 ` Kees Cook
2017-09-07 15:30 ` [PATCH 1/4] syscalls: Use CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION for addr_limit_user_check Kees Cook
2017-09-07 15:30   ` Kees Cook
2017-09-17 17:53   ` [tip:core/urgent] " tip-bot for Thomas Garnier
2017-09-07 15:30 ` [PATCH 2/4] Revert "arm/syscalls: Check address limit on user-mode return" Kees Cook
2017-09-07 15:30   ` Kees Cook
2017-09-17 17:54   ` [tip:core/urgent] " tip-bot for Thomas Garnier
2017-09-07 15:30 ` [PATCH 3/4] arm/syscalls: Optimize address limit check Kees Cook
2017-09-07 15:30   ` Kees Cook
2017-09-17 17:54   ` [tip:core/urgent] " tip-bot for Thomas Garnier
2017-09-07 15:30 ` [PATCH 4/4] arm64/syscalls: Move address limit check in loop Kees Cook
2017-09-07 15:30   ` Kees Cook
2017-09-12 18:27   ` Will Deacon [this message]
2017-09-12 18:27     ` Will Deacon
2017-09-12 18:28     ` Kees Cook
2017-09-12 18:28       ` Kees Cook
2017-09-12 18:28       ` Kees Cook
2017-09-13  8:00       ` Ingo Molnar
2017-09-13  8:00         ` Ingo Molnar
2017-09-13  8:00         ` Ingo Molnar
2017-09-17 17:54   ` [tip:core/urgent] " tip-bot for Thomas Garnier

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170912182727.GB27652@arm.com \
    --to=will.deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=Dave.Martin@arm.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
    --cc=luto@amacapital.net \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=panand@redhat.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=thgarnie@google.com \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=wad@chromium.org \
    --cc=yhs@fb.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.