All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 3/7] arm64: Introduce uaccess_{disable, enable} functionality based on TTBR0_EL1
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 11:27:42 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160906102741.GF19605@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160905172038.GC27305@leverpostej>

On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 06:20:38PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:02:09PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_TTBR0_PAN
> > +#define RESERVED_TTBR0_SIZE	(PAGE_SIZE)
> > +#else
> > +#define RESERVED_TTBR0_SIZE	(0)
> > +#endif
> 
> I was going to suggest that we use the empty_zero_page, which we can
> address with an adrp, because I had forgotten that we need to generate
> the *physical* address.
> 
> It would be good if we could have a description of why we need the new
> reserved page somewhere in the code. I'm sure I won't be the only one
> tripped up by this.
> 
> It would be possible to use the existing empty_zero_page, if we're happy
> to have a MOVZ; MOVK; MOVK; MOVK sequence that we patch at boot-time.
> That could be faster than an MRS on some implementations.

I was trying to keep the number of instructions to a minimum in
preference to potentially slightly faster sequence (I haven't done any
benchmarks). On ARMv8.1+ implementations, we just end up with more nops.

We could also do an ldr from a PC-relative address, it's one instruction
and it may not be (significantly) slower than MRS + ADD.

> > +static inline void uaccess_ttbr0_enable(void)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Disable interrupts to avoid preemption and potential saved
> > +	 * TTBR0_EL1 updates between reading the variable and the MSR.
> > +	 */
> > +	local_irq_save(flags);
> > +	write_sysreg(current_thread_info()->ttbr0, ttbr0_el1);
> > +	isb();
> > +	local_irq_restore(flags);
> > +}
> 
> I don't follow what problem this actually protects us against. In the
> case of preemption everything should be saved+restored transparently, or
> things would go wrong as soon as we enable IRQs anyway.
> 
> Is this a hold-over from a percpu approach rather than the
> current_thread_info() approach?

If we get preempted between reading current_thread_info()->ttbr0 and
writing TTBR0_EL1, a series of context switches could lead to the update
of the ASID part of ttbr0. The actual MSR would store an old ASID in
TTBR0_EL1.

> > +#else
> > +static inline void uaccess_ttbr0_disable(void)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void uaccess_ttbr0_enable(void)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +#endif
> 
> I think that it's better to drop the ifdef and add:
> 
> 	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_TTBR0_PAN))
> 		return;
> 
> ... at the start of each function. GCC should optimize the entire thing
> away when not used, but we'll get compiler coverage regardless, and
> therefore less breakage. All the symbols we required should exist
> regardless.

The reason for this is that thread_info.ttbr0 is conditionally defined.
I don't think the compiler would ignore it.

> >  	.macro	uaccess_enable, tmp1, tmp2
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_TTBR0_PAN
> > +alternative_if_not ARM64_HAS_PAN
> > +	save_and_disable_irq \tmp2		// avoid preemption
> > +	uaccess_ttbr0_enable \tmp1
> > +	restore_irq \tmp2
> > +alternative_else
> > +	nop
> > +	nop
> > +	nop
> > +	nop
> > +	nop
> > +	nop
> > +	nop
> > +alternative_endif
> > +#endif
> 
> How about something like:
> 
> 	.macro alternative_endif_else_nop
> 	alternative_else
> 	.rept ((662b-661b) / 4)
> 	       nop
> 	.endr
> 	alternative_endif
> 	.endm
> 
> So for the above we could have:
> 
> 	alternative_if_not ARM64_HAS_PAN
> 		save_and_disable_irq \tmp2
> 		uaccess_ttbr0_enable \tmp1
> 		restore_irq \tmp2
> 	alternative_endif_else_nop
> 
> I'll see about spinning a patch, or discovering why that happens to be
> broken.

This looks better. Minor comment, I would actually name the ending
statement alternative_else_nop_endif to match the order in which you'd
normally write them.

> >  	 * tables again to remove any speculatively loaded cache lines.
> >  	 */
> >  	mov	x0, x25
> > -	add	x1, x26, #SWAPPER_DIR_SIZE
> > +	add	x1, x26, #SWAPPER_DIR_SIZE + RESERVED_TTBR0_SIZE
> >  	dmb	sy
> >  	bl	__inval_cache_range
> >  
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
> > index 659963d40bb4..fe393ccf9352 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
> > @@ -196,6 +196,11 @@ SECTIONS
> >  	swapper_pg_dir = .;
> >  	. += SWAPPER_DIR_SIZE;
> >  
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_TTBR0_PAN
> > +	reserved_ttbr0 = .;
> > +	. += PAGE_SIZE;
> > +#endif
> 
> Surely RESERVED_TTBR0_SIZE, as elsewhere?

I'll try to move it somewhere where it can be included in vmlinux.lds.S
(I can probably include cpufeature.h directly).

-- 
Catalin

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] arm64: Introduce uaccess_{disable, enable} functionality based on TTBR0_EL1
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 11:27:42 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160906102741.GF19605@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160905172038.GC27305@leverpostej>

On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 06:20:38PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:02:09PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_TTBR0_PAN
> > +#define RESERVED_TTBR0_SIZE	(PAGE_SIZE)
> > +#else
> > +#define RESERVED_TTBR0_SIZE	(0)
> > +#endif
> 
> I was going to suggest that we use the empty_zero_page, which we can
> address with an adrp, because I had forgotten that we need to generate
> the *physical* address.
> 
> It would be good if we could have a description of why we need the new
> reserved page somewhere in the code. I'm sure I won't be the only one
> tripped up by this.
> 
> It would be possible to use the existing empty_zero_page, if we're happy
> to have a MOVZ; MOVK; MOVK; MOVK sequence that we patch at boot-time.
> That could be faster than an MRS on some implementations.

I was trying to keep the number of instructions to a minimum in
preference to potentially slightly faster sequence (I haven't done any
benchmarks). On ARMv8.1+ implementations, we just end up with more nops.

We could also do an ldr from a PC-relative address, it's one instruction
and it may not be (significantly) slower than MRS + ADD.

> > +static inline void uaccess_ttbr0_enable(void)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Disable interrupts to avoid preemption and potential saved
> > +	 * TTBR0_EL1 updates between reading the variable and the MSR.
> > +	 */
> > +	local_irq_save(flags);
> > +	write_sysreg(current_thread_info()->ttbr0, ttbr0_el1);
> > +	isb();
> > +	local_irq_restore(flags);
> > +}
> 
> I don't follow what problem this actually protects us against. In the
> case of preemption everything should be saved+restored transparently, or
> things would go wrong as soon as we enable IRQs anyway.
> 
> Is this a hold-over from a percpu approach rather than the
> current_thread_info() approach?

If we get preempted between reading current_thread_info()->ttbr0 and
writing TTBR0_EL1, a series of context switches could lead to the update
of the ASID part of ttbr0. The actual MSR would store an old ASID in
TTBR0_EL1.

> > +#else
> > +static inline void uaccess_ttbr0_disable(void)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void uaccess_ttbr0_enable(void)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +#endif
> 
> I think that it's better to drop the ifdef and add:
> 
> 	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_TTBR0_PAN))
> 		return;
> 
> ... at the start of each function. GCC should optimize the entire thing
> away when not used, but we'll get compiler coverage regardless, and
> therefore less breakage. All the symbols we required should exist
> regardless.

The reason for this is that thread_info.ttbr0 is conditionally defined.
I don't think the compiler would ignore it.

> >  	.macro	uaccess_enable, tmp1, tmp2
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_TTBR0_PAN
> > +alternative_if_not ARM64_HAS_PAN
> > +	save_and_disable_irq \tmp2		// avoid preemption
> > +	uaccess_ttbr0_enable \tmp1
> > +	restore_irq \tmp2
> > +alternative_else
> > +	nop
> > +	nop
> > +	nop
> > +	nop
> > +	nop
> > +	nop
> > +	nop
> > +alternative_endif
> > +#endif
> 
> How about something like:
> 
> 	.macro alternative_endif_else_nop
> 	alternative_else
> 	.rept ((662b-661b) / 4)
> 	       nop
> 	.endr
> 	alternative_endif
> 	.endm
> 
> So for the above we could have:
> 
> 	alternative_if_not ARM64_HAS_PAN
> 		save_and_disable_irq \tmp2
> 		uaccess_ttbr0_enable \tmp1
> 		restore_irq \tmp2
> 	alternative_endif_else_nop
> 
> I'll see about spinning a patch, or discovering why that happens to be
> broken.

This looks better. Minor comment, I would actually name the ending
statement alternative_else_nop_endif to match the order in which you'd
normally write them.

> >  	 * tables again to remove any speculatively loaded cache lines.
> >  	 */
> >  	mov	x0, x25
> > -	add	x1, x26, #SWAPPER_DIR_SIZE
> > +	add	x1, x26, #SWAPPER_DIR_SIZE + RESERVED_TTBR0_SIZE
> >  	dmb	sy
> >  	bl	__inval_cache_range
> >  
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
> > index 659963d40bb4..fe393ccf9352 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
> > @@ -196,6 +196,11 @@ SECTIONS
> >  	swapper_pg_dir = .;
> >  	. += SWAPPER_DIR_SIZE;
> >  
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_TTBR0_PAN
> > +	reserved_ttbr0 = .;
> > +	. += PAGE_SIZE;
> > +#endif
> 
> Surely RESERVED_TTBR0_SIZE, as elsewhere?

I'll try to move it somewhere where it can be included in vmlinux.lds.S
(I can probably include cpufeature.h directly).

-- 
Catalin

  reply	other threads:[~2016-09-06 10:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-09-02 15:02 [PATCH v2 0/7] arm64: Privileged Access Never using TTBR0_EL1 switching Catalin Marinas
2016-09-02 15:02 ` [kernel-hardening] " Catalin Marinas
2016-09-02 15:02 ` [PATCH v2 1/7] arm64: Factor out PAN enabling/disabling into separate uaccess_* macros Catalin Marinas
2016-09-02 15:02   ` [kernel-hardening] " Catalin Marinas
2016-09-05 15:38   ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-05 15:38     ` [kernel-hardening] " Mark Rutland
2016-09-12 14:52     ` Catalin Marinas
2016-09-12 14:52       ` [kernel-hardening] " Catalin Marinas
2016-09-12 15:09       ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-12 15:09         ` [kernel-hardening] " Mark Rutland
2016-09-12 16:26         ` Catalin Marinas
2016-09-12 16:26           ` [kernel-hardening] " Catalin Marinas
2016-09-02 15:02 ` [PATCH v2 2/7] arm64: Factor out TTBR0_EL1 post-update workaround into a specific asm macro Catalin Marinas
2016-09-02 15:02   ` [kernel-hardening] " Catalin Marinas
2016-09-05 16:11   ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-05 16:11     ` [kernel-hardening] " Mark Rutland
2016-09-02 15:02 ` [PATCH v2 3/7] arm64: Introduce uaccess_{disable, enable} functionality based on TTBR0_EL1 Catalin Marinas
2016-09-02 15:02   ` [kernel-hardening] [PATCH v2 3/7] arm64: Introduce uaccess_{disable,enable} " Catalin Marinas
2016-09-05 17:20   ` [PATCH v2 3/7] arm64: Introduce uaccess_{disable, enable} " Mark Rutland
2016-09-05 17:20     ` [kernel-hardening] " Mark Rutland
2016-09-06 10:27     ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2016-09-06 10:27       ` Catalin Marinas
2016-09-06 10:45       ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-06 10:45         ` [kernel-hardening] " Mark Rutland
2016-09-11 13:55         ` Ard Biesheuvel
2016-09-11 13:55           ` Ard Biesheuvel
2016-09-12  9:32           ` Catalin Marinas
2016-09-12  9:32             ` Catalin Marinas
2016-09-09 17:15   ` Catalin Marinas
2016-09-09 17:15     ` [kernel-hardening] " Catalin Marinas
2016-09-02 15:02 ` [PATCH v2 4/7] arm64: Disable TTBR0_EL1 during normal kernel execution Catalin Marinas
2016-09-02 15:02   ` [kernel-hardening] " Catalin Marinas
2016-09-06 17:31   ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-06 17:31     ` [kernel-hardening] " Mark Rutland
2016-09-02 15:02 ` [PATCH v2 5/7] arm64: Handle faults caused by inadvertent user access with PAN enabled Catalin Marinas
2016-09-02 15:02   ` [kernel-hardening] " Catalin Marinas
2016-09-02 15:02 ` [PATCH v2 6/7] arm64: xen: Enable user access before a privcmd hvc call Catalin Marinas
2016-09-02 15:02   ` [kernel-hardening] " Catalin Marinas
2016-09-02 15:02 ` [PATCH v2 7/7] arm64: Enable CONFIG_ARM64_TTBR0_PAN Catalin Marinas
2016-09-02 15:02   ` [kernel-hardening] " Catalin Marinas
2016-09-02 15:47   ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-02 15:47     ` [kernel-hardening] " Mark Rutland
2016-09-07 23:20 ` [PATCH v2 0/7] arm64: Privileged Access Never using TTBR0_EL1 switching Kees Cook
2016-09-07 23:20   ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-09-08 12:51   ` Catalin Marinas
2016-09-08 12:51     ` [kernel-hardening] " Catalin Marinas
2016-09-08 15:50     ` Kees Cook
2016-09-08 15:50       ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-09-09 16:31     ` Mark Rutland
2016-09-09 16:31       ` [kernel-hardening] " Mark Rutland
2016-09-09 18:24       ` Kees Cook
2016-09-09 18:24         ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-09-09 23:40 ` [kernel-hardening] " David Brown
2016-09-09 23:40   ` David Brown
2016-09-10  9:51 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-09-10  9:51   ` [kernel-hardening] " Catalin Marinas
2016-09-10 10:56   ` Ard Biesheuvel
2016-09-10 10:56     ` [kernel-hardening] " Ard Biesheuvel
2016-09-11 12:16     ` Catalin Marinas
2016-09-11 12:16       ` [kernel-hardening] " Catalin Marinas

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=20160906102741.GF19605@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com \
    --to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /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.