All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	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-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] arm64/syscalls: Move address limit check in loop
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:00:11 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170913080011.cxydu4ptal53okzm@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jLXSxoFLnP-YHab0raYjt8nY_tfnCYmE1_9XOAio4MRCw@mail.gmail.com>


* Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> > 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 :/
> 
> Hi! I resent this to Ingo to pick up for -tip. I think he's waiting
> for -rc1, IIUC. Ingo, can you comment on timing for this getting sent
> to Linus?

Will accelerate them - didn't realize the urgency.

Thanks,

	Ingo

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: mingo@kernel.org (Ingo Molnar)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 4/4] arm64/syscalls: Move address limit check in loop
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:00:11 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170913080011.cxydu4ptal53okzm@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jLXSxoFLnP-YHab0raYjt8nY_tfnCYmE1_9XOAio4MRCw@mail.gmail.com>


* Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> > 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 :/
> 
> Hi! I resent this to Ingo to pick up for -tip. I think he's waiting
> for -rc1, IIUC. Ingo, can you comment on timing for this getting sent
> to Linus?

Will accelerate them - didn't realize the urgency.

Thanks,

	Ingo

  reply	other threads:[~2017-09-13  8:00 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
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 [this message]
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=20170913080011.cxydu4ptal53okzm@gmail.com \
    --to=mingo@kernel.org \
    --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=panand@redhat.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=thgarnie@google.com \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=wad@chromium.org \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=yhs@fb.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 4/4] arm64/syscalls: Move address limit check in loop' \
    /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

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.