All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
	 Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>,
	Alistair Delva <adelva@google.com>,
	 Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com>,
	William McVicker <willmcvicker@google.com>,
	 Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@google.com>,
	Mitch Phillips <mitchp@google.com>,
	 Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org,  Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH v3 0/2] userfaultfd: do not untag user pointers
Date: Fri,  2 Jul 2021 15:57:03 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210702225705.2477947-1-pcc@google.com> (raw)

If a user program uses userfaultfd on ranges of heap memory, it may
end up passing a tagged pointer to the kernel in the range.start
field of the UFFDIO_REGISTER ioctl. This can happen when using an
MTE-capable allocator, or on Android if using the Tagged Pointers
feature for MTE readiness [1].

When a fault subsequently occurs, the tag is stripped from the fault
address returned to the application in the fault.address field
of struct uffd_msg. However, from the application's perspective,
the tagged address *is* the memory address, so if the application
is unaware of memory tags, it may get confused by receiving an
address that is, from its point of view, outside of the bounds of the
allocation. We observed this behavior in the kselftest for userfaultfd
[2] but other applications could have the same problem.

Address this by not untagging pointers passed to the userfaultfd
ioctls. Instead, let the system call fail. Also change the kselftest
to use mmap so that it doesn't encounter this problem.

[1] https://source.android.com/devices/tech/debug/tagged-pointers
[2] tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c

Peter Collingbourne (2):
  userfaultfd: do not untag user pointers
  selftest: use mmap instead of posix_memalign to allocate memory

 Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.rst | 25 +++++++++++++++-------
 fs/userfaultfd.c                           | 22 +++++++++----------
 tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c   |  6 ++++--
 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

-- 
2.32.0.93.g670b81a890-goog



WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
	 Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>,
	Alistair Delva <adelva@google.com>,
	 Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com>,
	William McVicker <willmcvicker@google.com>,
	 Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@google.com>,
	Mitch Phillips <mitchp@google.com>,
	 Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org,  Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH v3 0/2] userfaultfd: do not untag user pointers
Date: Fri,  2 Jul 2021 15:57:03 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210702225705.2477947-1-pcc@google.com> (raw)

If a user program uses userfaultfd on ranges of heap memory, it may
end up passing a tagged pointer to the kernel in the range.start
field of the UFFDIO_REGISTER ioctl. This can happen when using an
MTE-capable allocator, or on Android if using the Tagged Pointers
feature for MTE readiness [1].

When a fault subsequently occurs, the tag is stripped from the fault
address returned to the application in the fault.address field
of struct uffd_msg. However, from the application's perspective,
the tagged address *is* the memory address, so if the application
is unaware of memory tags, it may get confused by receiving an
address that is, from its point of view, outside of the bounds of the
allocation. We observed this behavior in the kselftest for userfaultfd
[2] but other applications could have the same problem.

Address this by not untagging pointers passed to the userfaultfd
ioctls. Instead, let the system call fail. Also change the kselftest
to use mmap so that it doesn't encounter this problem.

[1] https://source.android.com/devices/tech/debug/tagged-pointers
[2] tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c

Peter Collingbourne (2):
  userfaultfd: do not untag user pointers
  selftest: use mmap instead of posix_memalign to allocate memory

 Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.rst | 25 +++++++++++++++-------
 fs/userfaultfd.c                           | 22 +++++++++----------
 tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c   |  6 ++++--
 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

-- 
2.32.0.93.g670b81a890-goog


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

             reply	other threads:[~2021-07-02 22:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-07-02 22:57 Peter Collingbourne [this message]
2021-07-02 22:57 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] userfaultfd: do not untag user pointers Peter Collingbourne
2021-07-02 22:57 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] " Peter Collingbourne
2021-07-02 22:57   ` Peter Collingbourne
2021-07-02 22:57   ` Peter Collingbourne
2021-07-03  2:46   ` kernel test robot
2021-07-03  2:46     ` kernel test robot
2021-07-03  3:06   ` kernel test robot
2021-07-03  3:06     ` kernel test robot
2021-07-03  5:02   ` kernel test robot
2021-07-03  5:02     ` kernel test robot
2021-07-03  9:05   ` kernel test robot
2021-07-03  9:05     ` kernel test robot
2021-07-04 15:39   ` Andrey Konovalov
2021-07-04 15:39     ` Andrey Konovalov
2021-07-04 15:39     ` Andrey Konovalov
2021-07-02 22:57 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] selftest: use mmap instead of posix_memalign to allocate memory Peter Collingbourne
2021-07-02 22:57   ` Peter Collingbourne
2021-07-02 22:57   ` Peter Collingbourne

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=20210702225705.2477947-1-pcc@google.com \
    --to=pcc@google.com \
    --cc=Dave.Martin@arm.com \
    --cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
    --cc=adelva@google.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=andreyknvl@gmail.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=eugenis@google.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=lokeshgidra@google.com \
    --cc=mitchp@google.com \
    --cc=vincenzo.frascino@arm.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=willmcvicker@google.com \
    /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.