Re: [PATCH v19 00/15] arm64: untag user pointers passed to the kernel

From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, Christian Koenig <Christian.Koenig@amd.com>,
	Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Kostya Serebryany <kcc@google.com>,
	Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@oracle.com>,
	Lee Smith <Lee.Smith@arm.com>,
	"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
	<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
	Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Jacob Bramley <Jacob.Bramley@arm.com>,
	Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
	linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
	Evgeniy Stepanov <eugenis@google.com>,
	linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
	Ruben Ayrapetyan <Ruben.Ayrapetyan@arm.com>,
	Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
	Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>,
	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@amd.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@linaro.org>,
	Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>,
	Alexander Deucher <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, enh <enh@google.com>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	Yishai Hadas <yishaih@mellanox.com>,
	Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 00/15] arm64: untag user pointers passed to the kernel
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 10:28:00 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190809092758.GK10425@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190809090016.GA23083@arrakis.emea.arm.com>

On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 10:00:17AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 04:09:04PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 03:33:00PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 14:12:19 -0700 Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > The ones that are left are the mm ones: 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Andrew, could you take a look and give your Acked-by or pick them up directly?
> > > > 
> > > > Given the subsystem Acks, it seems like 3-10 and 12 could all just go
> > > > via Andrew? I hope he agrees. :)
> > > 
> > > I'll grab everything that has not yet appeared in linux-next.  If more
> > > of these patches appear in linux-next I'll drop those as well.
> > > 
> > > The review discussion against " [PATCH v19 02/15] arm64: Introduce
> > > prctl() options to control the tagged user addresses ABI" has petered
> > > out inconclusively.  prctl() vs arch_prctl().
> > 
> > I've always disliked arch_prctl() existing at all. Given that tagging is
> > likely to be a multi-architectural feature, it seems like the controls
> > should live in prctl() to me.
> 
> It took a bit of grep'ing to figure out what Dave H meant by
> arch_prctl(). It's an x86-specific syscall which we do not have on arm64
> (and possibly any other architecture). Actually, we don't have any arm64
> specific syscalls, only the generic unistd.h, hence the confusion. For
> other arm64-specific prctls like SVE we used the generic sys_prctl() and
> I can see x86 not being consistent either (PR_MPX_ENABLE_MANAGEMENT).
> 
> In general I disagree with adding any arm64-specific syscalls but in
> this instance it can't even be justified. I'd rather see some clean-up
> similar to arch_ptrace/ptrace_request than introducing new syscall
> numbers (but as I suggested in my reply to Dave, that's for another
> patch series).

I had a go at refactoring this a while ago, but it fell by the wayside.

I can try to resurrect it if it's still considered worthwhile.

Cheers
---Dave