From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A713BC282DD for ; Wed, 22 May 2019 16:58:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D1BF206BA for ; Wed, 22 May 2019 16:58:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="wK+Ags5f" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730256AbfEVQ6h (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 May 2019 12:58:37 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-f193.google.com ([209.85.208.193]:35921 "EHLO mail-lj1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730243AbfEVQ6h (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 May 2019 12:58:37 -0400 Received: by mail-lj1-f193.google.com with SMTP id z1so2787915ljb.3 for ; Wed, 22 May 2019 09:58:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=iEj6Ff/H6E4VLiXQm6DO5BqKseElb7ler1ySMSlsz4I=; b=wK+Ags5fi2Zh9VWkgyeKWGUKDczOLAxo6NEBDIkT47LLbY+0uPXQ20Ef3md4Je4YM7 yTt+Dnj+qvCgrr4bQbXebiU250PfvvmpvwxcaxOqBf5zn5CMszutRFHD1jRI8Y5V/CPs jt+pv/yu85FknwLJ8Zo9R8XECA2KhoyXo2Diq4THdh7+NYacc5mTvAPuk8TOUmLqFwYn AgFwdp2R8ztxIowcvgrh5IyXMpDzu2HT0gF+HDg31nzr0Ecz3Q04rvVhTpk7W+XmTJ5D H6CtsOUOTi8rz1vPfB8hysSXAunrOlBx79JX28IwO3FUWoOi2wwQCUxMiiDLS3NePwQF DnQw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=iEj6Ff/H6E4VLiXQm6DO5BqKseElb7ler1ySMSlsz4I=; b=WRYyxPJrHkEeGzCAKQUzlB/3UApxdJ86CSUlimpRjSExAaZhVSxmnR/IS942wba0Gc 4ed9Nxu9+CYUEQhgoVNk/FEzftlOYLUnejYNUvOl1V3/PQPUdWJaU4ZJa84TS2Z4Wa1i IVSqt/iW05fNlVasLgs1DKZ7bWm3LYj/CUZ3mnD5sp1m2FmUOQly3y8CPEPufnY5xEWy abugGvXPwOviR5nOOO7AX7j/MqErqa+crqqs1H2Zsjku0AjyH2fbRa0R3NzhNqIXtcSW UsOdufUbqxFLmD2tFJs649bdxaa7E/PtU6Hre4AQjDeHLjR0hQ/LvW4uXHnUaAzBfAlz UGuQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWsyOlLgOFxdCin9wlBba7YE48QK9r8n9DGMPp8zBqIDDYP461V bQCpjqJGKS/+9DLZYE4+2/KmKDIip+yDye0fIQaumQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy5hQuwmu5sUHU1LdrMDZRl8vRMt+7oXELCei2Hw7KHmtQdp6HFikhxSbWr2LIYnAvYIHTeEegng6kT70Dc8d0= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8614:: with SMTP id a20mr7690480lji.20.1558544313559; Wed, 22 May 2019 09:58:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190517144931.GA56186@arrakis.emea.arm.com> <20190521182932.sm4vxweuwo5ermyd@mbp> <201905211633.6C0BF0C2@keescook> <20190522101110.m2stmpaj7seezveq@mbp> <20190522163527.rnnc6t4tll7tk5zw@mbp> In-Reply-To: <20190522163527.rnnc6t4tll7tk5zw@mbp> From: enh Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 09:58:22 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 00/17] arm64: untag user pointers passed to the kernel To: Catalin Marinas Cc: Kees Cook , Evgenii Stepanov , Andrey Konovalov , Khalid Aziz , Linux ARM , Linux Memory Management List , LKML , amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , Vincenzo Frascino , Will Deacon , Mark Rutland , Andrew Morton , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Yishai Hadas , Felix Kuehling , Alexander Deucher , Christian Koenig , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Jens Wiklander , Alex Williamson , Leon Romanovsky , Dmitry Vyukov , Kostya Serebryany , Lee Smith , Ramana Radhakrishnan , Jacob Bramley , Ruben Ayrapetyan , Robin Murphy , Luc Van Oostenryck , Dave Martin , Kevin Brodsky , Szabolcs Nagy Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-media@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:35 AM Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 08:30:21AM -0700, enh wrote: > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 3:11 AM Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 05:04:39PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > > > I just want to make sure I fully understand your concern about this > > > > being an ABI break, and I work best with examples. The closest situation > > > > I can see would be: > > > > > > > > - some program has no idea about MTE > > > > > > Apart from some libraries like libc (and maybe those that handle > > > specific device ioctls), I think most programs should have no idea about > > > MTE. I wouldn't expect programmers to have to change their app just > > > because we have a new feature that colours heap allocations. > > > > obviously i'm biased as a libc maintainer, but... > > > > i don't think it helps to move this to libc --- now you just have an > > extra dependency where to have a guaranteed working system you need to > > update your kernel and libc together. (or at least update your libc to > > understand new ioctls etc _before_ you can update your kernel.) > > That's not what I meant (or I misunderstood you). If we have a relaxed > ABI in the kernel and a libc that returns tagged pointers on malloc() I > wouldn't expect the programmer to do anything different in the > application code like explicit untagging. Basically the program would > continue to run unmodified irrespective of whether you use an old libc > without tagged pointers or a new one which tags heap allocations. > > What I do expect is that the libc checks for the presence of the relaxed > ABI, currently proposed as an AT_FLAGS bit (for MTE we'd have a > HWCAP_MTE), and only tag the malloc() pointers if the kernel supports > the relaxed ABI. As you said, you shouldn't expect that the C library > and kernel are upgraded together, so they should be able to work in any > new/old version combination. yes, that part makes sense. i do think we'd use the AT_FLAGS bit, for exactly this. i was questioning the argument about the ioctl issues, and saying that from my perspective, untagging bugs are not really any different than any other kind of kernel bug. > > > > The trouble I see with this is that it is largely theoretical and > > > > requires part of userspace to collude to start using a new CPU feature > > > > that tickles a bug in the kernel. As I understand the golden rule, > > > > this is a bug in the kernel (a missed ioctl() or such) to be fixed, > > > > not a global breaking of some userspace behavior. > > > > > > Yes, we should follow the rule that it's a kernel bug but it doesn't > > > help the user that a newly installed kernel causes user space to no > > > longer reach a prompt. Hence the proposal of an opt-in via personality > > > (for MTE we would need an explicit opt-in by the user anyway since the > > > top byte is no longer ignored but checked against the allocation tag). > > > > but realistically would this actually get used in this way? or would > > any given system either be MTE or non-MTE. in which case a kernel > > configuration option would seem to make more sense. (because either > > way, the hypothetical user basically needs to recompile the kernel to > > get back on their feet. or all of userspace.) > > The two hard requirements I have for supporting any new hardware feature > in Linux are (1) a single kernel image binary continues to run on old > hardware while making use of the new feature if available and (2) old > user space continues to run on new hardware while new user space can > take advantage of the new feature. > > The distro user space usually has a hard requirement that it continues > to run on (certain) old hardware. We can't enforce this in the kernel > but we offer the option to user space developers of checking feature > availability through HWCAP bits. > > The Android story may be different as you have more control about which > kernel configurations are deployed on specific SoCs. I'm looking more > from a Linux distro angle where you just get an off-the-shelf OS image > and install it on your hardware, either taking advantage of new features > or just not using them if the software was not updated. Or, if updated > software is installed on old hardware, it would just run. > > For MTE, we just can't enable it by default since there are applications > who use the top byte of a pointer and expect it to be ignored rather > than failing with a mismatched tag. Just think of a hwasan compiled > binary where TBI is expected to work and you try to run it with MTE > turned on. > > I would also expect the C library or dynamic loader to check for the > presence of a HWCAP_MTE bit before starting to tag memory allocations, > otherwise it would get SIGILL on the first MTE instruction it tries to > execute. (a bit off-topic, but i thought the MTE instructions were encoded in the no-op space, to avoid this?) > > i'm not sure i see this new way for a kernel update to break my system > > and need to be fixed forward/rolled back as any different from any of > > the existing ways in which this can happen :-) as an end-user i have > > to rely on whoever's sending me software updates to test adequately > > enough that they find the problems. as an end user, there isn't any > > difference between "my phone rebooted when i tried to take a photo > > because of a kernel/driver leak", say, and "my phone rebooted when i > > tried to take a photo because of missing untagging of a pointer passed > > via ioctl". > > > > i suspect you and i have very different people in mind when we say "user" :-) > > Indeed, I think we have different users in mind. I didn't mean the end > user who doesn't really care which C library version it's running on > their phone but rather advanced users (not necessarily kernel > developers) that prefer to build their own kernels with every release. > We could extend this to kernel developers who don't have time to track > down why a new kernel triggers lots of SIGSEGVs during boot. i still don't see how this isn't just a regular testing/CI issue, the same as any other kind of kernel bug. it's already the case that i can get a bad kernel... > -- > Catalin