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=-9.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham 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 E1F1FC433E2 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 02:23:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACAC62177B for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 02:23:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="LRzvtOfw" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726080AbgINCXc (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Sep 2020 22:23:32 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:38840 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726063AbgINCXI (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Sep 2020 22:23:08 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-x444.google.com (mail-pf1-x444.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::444]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57600C061787 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 2020 19:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x444.google.com with SMTP id z19so11274446pfn.8 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 2020 19:23:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:subject:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :message-id:content-transfer-encoding; bh=S0bpuER8lp5sCLLApRh4TVdUkMZpH/s2SiKWUHdd/Wk=; b=LRzvtOfwJ7mfIhgSbAsvzmuhWDE8s77+SaIA0kP0jk8Gnpo3YDH/L4C0TXTxgvw4r+ dY/cr/G+b8g0plhTdbrvKRH7VTYJt7ihYowjwdm7nT6Tqlzi65h0Oua7J7+rhwdn3LSD 6IK3SYBnhGoU+0TW8AkndZLAkgIlgMpCmIQ6PchAWQWEv1hHb5MnWS1/hF8r0L7WWlte OtNw8rlDhA86kAcfLZ9iGmcZrbVs0JglpASNtrpZpwzB8odjb7d9Mc4ptPtcweP4cPop KXTR53OEfsdbiZ8BWxdwYhwNk0WPl9ULx0+gsu6DjyQLXkYUvbeDvjnmYnHvZ5KkXo7R 02uQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:subject:to:cc:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:message-id:content-transfer-encoding; bh=S0bpuER8lp5sCLLApRh4TVdUkMZpH/s2SiKWUHdd/Wk=; b=CtjcCgvFyVSW1dtDKilfCK/sLu1k8GQcbJQkeKBMyH3DJ4n9KES5hZBwVQGzZ8eD5j WdkaLfA/jZygvdwNldQVWPDdK9PvqwQcUFEykwXweuQkZmmgAZ5B9mR4Jf6uxjy3Ddqx 9OS09yq902YRYoW0yYx2mXjSPzoW5UZF2je6Ieqxbm/YD27LmJXFrh4myMdoLzct6EOV PdtYIbGhFjtop+bgL1ssspst+KFJ3HEUuBrxPfymuzsdU/gm2sE4vhten8to6POEOd/6 XPq3xjr+2Nc4dtJ6lrlUcD/sOv0B9DcXm8JiOQQs6GPe+E0/krvVjR0gXqTNmKg5Zh4p V8pg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533jTlTq7L5thC959alwUKwRuudHImc5XVrolLeS6tU1pr4S3Upo ZFI+nkWktmSIC4EXjFb/Ni056GqMY5Q= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzM7aIfTnbjIRE8UmEylrMp0SwQ8IXrxRm//8Gh+7Y6sS/1zl/nUnchfjLUAnSctnC/0GY+mQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b7c7:b029:d1:cc21:9c38 with SMTP id v7-20020a170902b7c7b02900d1cc219c38mr1129143plz.21.1600050187733; Sun, 13 Sep 2020 19:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([203.185.249.227]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h14sm8854048pfe.67.2020.09.13.19.23.06 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 13 Sep 2020 19:23:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 12:23:01 +1000 From: Nicholas Piggin Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/5] powerpc/fault: Avoid heavy search_exception_tables() verification To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Christophe Leroy , Michael Ellerman , Paul Mackerras Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org References: <7baae4086cbb9ffb08c933b065ff7d29dbc03dd6.1596734104.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> <871rjb5vv4.fsf@linux.ibm.com> <1ded5e11-a9e0-a98f-295c-c623e0a5ed36@csgroup.eu> In-Reply-To: <1ded5e11-a9e0-a98f-295c-c623e0a5ed36@csgroup.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <1600048261.m5q9cmngxb.astroid@bobo.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Excerpts from Christophe Leroy's message of September 9, 2020 4:20 pm: >=20 >=20 > Le 09/09/2020 =C3=A0 08:04, Aneesh Kumar K.V a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0: >> Christophe Leroy writes: >>=20 >>> search_exception_tables() is an heavy operation, we have to avoid it. >>> When KUAP is selected, we'll know the fault has been blocked by KUAP. >>> Otherwise, it behaves just as if the address was already in the TLBs >>> and no fault was generated. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy >>> --- >>> arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c | 20 +++++--------------- >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c >>> index 525e0c2b5406..edde169ba3a6 100644 >>> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c >>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c >>> @@ -214,24 +214,14 @@ static bool bad_kernel_fault(struct pt_regs *regs= , unsigned long error_code, >>> if (address >=3D TASK_SIZE) >>> return true; >>> =20 >>> - if (!is_exec && (error_code & DSISR_PROTFAULT) && >>> - !search_exception_tables(regs->nip)) { >>> + // Read/write fault blocked by KUAP is bad, it can never succeed. >>> + if (bad_kuap_fault(regs, address, is_write)) { >>> pr_crit_ratelimited("Kernel attempted to access user page (%lx) - e= xploit attempt? (uid: %d)\n", >>> - address, >>> - from_kuid(&init_user_ns, current_uid())); >>> - } >>> - >>> - // Fault on user outside of certain regions (eg. copy_tofrom_user()) = is bad >>> - if (!search_exception_tables(regs->nip)) >>> - return true; >>=20 >> We still need to keep this ? Without that we detect the lack of >> exception tables pretty late. >=20 > Is that a problem at all to detect the lack of exception tables late ? > That case is very unlikely and will lead to failure anyway. So, is it=20 > worth impacting performance of the likely case which will always have an=20 > exception table and where we expect the exception to run as fast as=20 > possible ? >=20 > The other architectures I have looked at (arm64 and x86) only have the=20 > exception table search together with the down_read_trylock(&mm->mmap_sem)= . Yeah I don't see how it'd be a problem. User could arrange for page=20 table to already be at this address and avoid the fault so it's not the=20 right way to stop an attacker, KUAP is. Thanks, Nick 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=-9.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 98FD7C433E2 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 02:25:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC29C2168B for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 02:25:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="LRzvtOfw" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org BC29C2168B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BqVZ61qtkzDqVd for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 12:25:02 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com (client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::544; helo=mail-pg1-x544.google.com; envelope-from=npiggin@gmail.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20161025 header.b=LRzvtOfw; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail-pg1-x544.google.com (mail-pg1-x544.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::544]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BqVX1300szDqSW for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 12:23:11 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-pg1-x544.google.com with SMTP id 34so10274880pgo.13 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 2020 19:23:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:subject:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :message-id:content-transfer-encoding; bh=S0bpuER8lp5sCLLApRh4TVdUkMZpH/s2SiKWUHdd/Wk=; b=LRzvtOfwJ7mfIhgSbAsvzmuhWDE8s77+SaIA0kP0jk8Gnpo3YDH/L4C0TXTxgvw4r+ dY/cr/G+b8g0plhTdbrvKRH7VTYJt7ihYowjwdm7nT6Tqlzi65h0Oua7J7+rhwdn3LSD 6IK3SYBnhGoU+0TW8AkndZLAkgIlgMpCmIQ6PchAWQWEv1hHb5MnWS1/hF8r0L7WWlte OtNw8rlDhA86kAcfLZ9iGmcZrbVs0JglpASNtrpZpwzB8odjb7d9Mc4ptPtcweP4cPop KXTR53OEfsdbiZ8BWxdwYhwNk0WPl9ULx0+gsu6DjyQLXkYUvbeDvjnmYnHvZ5KkXo7R 02uQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:subject:to:cc:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:message-id:content-transfer-encoding; bh=S0bpuER8lp5sCLLApRh4TVdUkMZpH/s2SiKWUHdd/Wk=; b=N+OErRthKpeF3x79Ywes0OuhhJRVLxgHIXxoiFgrvi5/IOVGXt6A1qZtbAplEP7Cf9 9AJqFcDfyCtw1LG7eHNhv0cDJktrCzi6zpRS4+aYFXZdH0//dzwgB504Ul2uzNp01TH8 6UHBlwPxYWJYuXQ4iqOYW1C7vO5IXCGkPIz68WpRPUd6XUekfHkHMC6RyA4ezgC/gjIC boZWiutZu6dJJ0F2+gVUDiHewp8pCNmHUE9GNjZedoF8YU7e/l5PmB5r3GVz4P0D1pue SpvGaoP8vX+BAPnVn8c1AWGN7Cojw/oqb23rk90xIOiyrI6yjUCxGcOjVFPPttk8uRE7 TLdQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530wmmNZMEsBG9cFOh7mFEyXDZMdakXnTknav873EiL/idpCNFIx Qr+fPC2I2Gj36EsK7jdaW5Q= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzM7aIfTnbjIRE8UmEylrMp0SwQ8IXrxRm//8Gh+7Y6sS/1zl/nUnchfjLUAnSctnC/0GY+mQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b7c7:b029:d1:cc21:9c38 with SMTP id v7-20020a170902b7c7b02900d1cc219c38mr1129143plz.21.1600050187733; Sun, 13 Sep 2020 19:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([203.185.249.227]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h14sm8854048pfe.67.2020.09.13.19.23.06 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 13 Sep 2020 19:23:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 12:23:01 +1000 From: Nicholas Piggin Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/5] powerpc/fault: Avoid heavy search_exception_tables() verification To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Christophe Leroy , Michael Ellerman , Paul Mackerras References: <7baae4086cbb9ffb08c933b065ff7d29dbc03dd6.1596734104.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> <871rjb5vv4.fsf@linux.ibm.com> <1ded5e11-a9e0-a98f-295c-c623e0a5ed36@csgroup.eu> In-Reply-To: <1ded5e11-a9e0-a98f-295c-c623e0a5ed36@csgroup.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <1600048261.m5q9cmngxb.astroid@bobo.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Excerpts from Christophe Leroy's message of September 9, 2020 4:20 pm: >=20 >=20 > Le 09/09/2020 =C3=A0 08:04, Aneesh Kumar K.V a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0: >> Christophe Leroy writes: >>=20 >>> search_exception_tables() is an heavy operation, we have to avoid it. >>> When KUAP is selected, we'll know the fault has been blocked by KUAP. >>> Otherwise, it behaves just as if the address was already in the TLBs >>> and no fault was generated. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy >>> --- >>> arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c | 20 +++++--------------- >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c >>> index 525e0c2b5406..edde169ba3a6 100644 >>> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c >>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c >>> @@ -214,24 +214,14 @@ static bool bad_kernel_fault(struct pt_regs *regs= , unsigned long error_code, >>> if (address >=3D TASK_SIZE) >>> return true; >>> =20 >>> - if (!is_exec && (error_code & DSISR_PROTFAULT) && >>> - !search_exception_tables(regs->nip)) { >>> + // Read/write fault blocked by KUAP is bad, it can never succeed. >>> + if (bad_kuap_fault(regs, address, is_write)) { >>> pr_crit_ratelimited("Kernel attempted to access user page (%lx) - e= xploit attempt? (uid: %d)\n", >>> - address, >>> - from_kuid(&init_user_ns, current_uid())); >>> - } >>> - >>> - // Fault on user outside of certain regions (eg. copy_tofrom_user()) = is bad >>> - if (!search_exception_tables(regs->nip)) >>> - return true; >>=20 >> We still need to keep this ? Without that we detect the lack of >> exception tables pretty late. >=20 > Is that a problem at all to detect the lack of exception tables late ? > That case is very unlikely and will lead to failure anyway. So, is it=20 > worth impacting performance of the likely case which will always have an=20 > exception table and where we expect the exception to run as fast as=20 > possible ? >=20 > The other architectures I have looked at (arm64 and x86) only have the=20 > exception table search together with the down_read_trylock(&mm->mmap_sem)= . Yeah I don't see how it'd be a problem. User could arrange for page=20 table to already be at this address and avoid the fault so it's not the=20 right way to stop an attacker, KUAP is. Thanks, Nick