linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with the arm64 tree

linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with the arm64 tree

[broonie]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the kspp tree got a conflict in:

  arch/arm64/kernel/alternative.c

between commit:

  b723edf3a12a2 ("arm64: alternatives: make alt_region const")

from the arm64 tree and commit:

  5f20997c194e8 ("arm64: Drop unneeded __nocfi attributes")

from the kspp tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

diff --cc arch/arm64/kernel/alternative.c
index 64045e3ef03a9,d2c66507398d7..0000000000000
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/alternative.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/alternative.c
@@@ -139,9 -133,8 +139,9 @@@ static void clean_dcache_range_nopatch(
  	} while (cur += d_size, cur < end);
  }
  
- static void __nocfi __apply_alternatives(const struct alt_region *region,
- 					 bool is_module,
- 					 unsigned long *feature_mask)
 -static void __apply_alternatives(struct alt_region *region, bool is_module,
++static void __apply_alternatives(const struct alt_region *region,
++				 bool is_module,
+ 				 unsigned long *feature_mask)
  {
  	struct alt_instr *alt;
  	__le32 *origptr, *updptr;

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with the arm64 tree

[Kees Cook]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 07:59:11PM +0100, broonie@kernel.org wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the kspp tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/arm64/kernel/alternative.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   b723edf3a12a2 ("arm64: alternatives: make alt_region const")
> 
> from the arm64 tree and commit:
> 
>   5f20997c194e8 ("arm64: Drop unneeded __nocfi attributes")
> 
> from the kspp tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
> 
> diff --cc arch/arm64/kernel/alternative.c
> index 64045e3ef03a9,d2c66507398d7..0000000000000
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/alternative.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/alternative.c
> @@@ -139,9 -133,8 +139,9 @@@ static void clean_dcache_range_nopatch(
>   	} while (cur += d_size, cur < end);
>   }
>   
> - static void __nocfi __apply_alternatives(const struct alt_region *region,
> - 					 bool is_module,
> - 					 unsigned long *feature_mask)
>  -static void __apply_alternatives(struct alt_region *region, bool is_module,
> ++static void __apply_alternatives(const struct alt_region *region,
> ++				 bool is_module,
> + 				 unsigned long *feature_mask)
>   {
>   	struct alt_instr *alt;
>   	__le32 *origptr, *updptr;

Thanks! Yes, this looks correct.

-- 
Kees Cook

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with the arm64 tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1640 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 19:59:11 +0100 broonie@kernel.org wrote:
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the kspp tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/arm64/kernel/alternative.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   b723edf3a12a2 ("arm64: alternatives: make alt_region const")
> 
> from the arm64 tree and commit:
> 
>   5f20997c194e8 ("arm64: Drop unneeded __nocfi attributes")
> 
> from the kspp tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
> 
> diff --cc arch/arm64/kernel/alternative.c
> index 64045e3ef03a9,d2c66507398d7..0000000000000
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/alternative.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/alternative.c
> @@@ -139,9 -133,8 +139,9 @@@ static void clean_dcache_range_nopatch(
>   	} while (cur += d_size, cur < end);
>   }
>   
> - static void __nocfi __apply_alternatives(const struct alt_region *region,
> - 					 bool is_module,
> - 					 unsigned long *feature_mask)
>  -static void __apply_alternatives(struct alt_region *region, bool is_module,
> ++static void __apply_alternatives(const struct alt_region *region,
> ++				 bool is_module,
> + 				 unsigned long *feature_mask)
>   {
>   	struct alt_instr *alt;
>   	__le32 *origptr, *updptr;

This is now a conflict between the arm64 tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with the arm64 tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1484 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the kspp tree got a conflict in:

  arch/arm64/kernel/alternative.c

between commit:

  8d144746ecc5 ("arm64: alternative: simplify passing alt_region")

from the arm64 tree and commit:

  9562f3dc6f50 ("arm64: add __nocfi to __apply_alternatives")

from the kspp tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc arch/arm64/kernel/alternative.c
index f6fd16185040,abc84636af07..000000000000
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/alternative.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/alternative.c
@@@ -133,10 -133,11 +133,10 @@@ static void clean_dcache_range_nopatch(
  	} while (cur += d_size, cur < end);
  }
  
- static void __apply_alternatives(struct alt_region *region, bool is_module,
- 				 unsigned long *feature_mask)
 -static void __nocfi __apply_alternatives(void *alt_region,  bool is_module,
++static void __nocfi __apply_alternatives(struct alt_region *region, bool is_module,
+ 					 unsigned long *feature_mask)
  {
  	struct alt_instr *alt;
 -	struct alt_region *region = alt_region;
  	__le32 *origptr, *updptr;
  	alternative_cb_t alt_cb;
  

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with the arm64 tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Kees,

Today's linux-next merge of the kspp tree got a conflict in:

  arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h

between commit:

  bffe1baff5d5 ("arm64: kasan: instrument user memory access API")

from the arm64 tree and commit:

  aac380fe78b1 ("arm64/uaccess: Enable hardened usercopy")

from the kspp tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
index 5e834d10b291,c3d445b42351..000000000000
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
@@@ -264,33 -276,32 +264,38 @@@ extern unsigned long __must_check __cle
  
  static inline unsigned long __must_check __copy_from_user(void *to, const void __user *from, unsigned long n)
  {
 +	kasan_check_write(to, n);
- 	return  __arch_copy_from_user(to, from, n);
+ 	check_object_size(to, n, false);
+ 	return __arch_copy_from_user(to, from, n);
  }
  
  static inline unsigned long __must_check __copy_to_user(void __user *to, const void *from, unsigned long n)
  {
 +	kasan_check_read(from, n);
- 	return  __arch_copy_to_user(to, from, n);
+ 	check_object_size(from, n, true);
+ 	return __arch_copy_to_user(to, from, n);
  }
  
  static inline unsigned long __must_check copy_from_user(void *to, const void __user *from, unsigned long n)
  {
 +	kasan_check_write(to, n);
 +
- 	if (access_ok(VERIFY_READ, from, n))
+ 	if (access_ok(VERIFY_READ, from, n)) {
+ 		check_object_size(to, n, false);
  		n = __arch_copy_from_user(to, from, n);
- 	else /* security hole - plug it */
+ 	} else /* security hole - plug it */
  		memset(to, 0, n);
  	return n;
  }
  
  static inline unsigned long __must_check copy_to_user(void __user *to, const void *from, unsigned long n)
  {
 +	kasan_check_read(from, n);
 +
- 	if (access_ok(VERIFY_WRITE, to, n))
+ 	if (access_ok(VERIFY_WRITE, to, n)) {
+ 		check_object_size(from, n, true);
  		n = __arch_copy_to_user(to, from, n);
+ 	}
  	return n;
  }
  

linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with the arm64 tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Kees,

Today's linux-next merge of the kspp tree got a conflict in:

  arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h

between commit:

  bffe1baff5d5 ("arm64: kasan: instrument user memory access API")

from the arm64 tree and commit:

  b19e7f50f056 ("arm64/uaccess: Enable hardened usercopy")

from the kspp tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
index 5e834d10b291,1779cbdb7838..000000000000
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
@@@ -264,14 -276,14 +264,15 @@@ extern unsigned long __must_check __cle
  
  static inline unsigned long __must_check __copy_from_user(void *to, const void __user *from, unsigned long n)
  {
 +	kasan_check_write(to, n);
- 	return  __arch_copy_from_user(to, from, n);
+ 	check_object_size(to, n, false);
+ 	return __arch_copy_from_user(to, from, n);
  }
  
  static inline unsigned long __must_check __copy_to_user(void __user *to, const void *from, unsigned long n)
  {
 -	check_object_size(from, n, true);
 +	kasan_check_read(from, n);
- 	return  __arch_copy_to_user(to, from, n);
+ 	return __arch_copy_to_user(to, from, n);
  }
  
  static inline unsigned long __must_check copy_from_user(void *to, const void __user *from, unsigned long n)

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with the arm64 tree

[Kees Cook]

On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi Kees,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kspp tree got a conflict in:
>
>   arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
>
> between commit:
>
>   bffe1baff5d5 ("arm64: kasan: instrument user memory access API")
>
> from the arm64 tree and commit:
>
>   b19e7f50f056 ("arm64/uaccess: Enable hardened usercopy")
>
> from the kspp tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
> index 5e834d10b291,1779cbdb7838..000000000000
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
> @@@ -264,14 -276,14 +264,15 @@@ extern unsigned long __must_check __cle
>
>   static inline unsigned long __must_check __copy_from_user(void *to, const void __user *from, unsigned long n)
>   {
>  +      kasan_check_write(to, n);
> -       return  __arch_copy_from_user(to, from, n);
> +       check_object_size(to, n, false);
> +       return __arch_copy_from_user(to, from, n);
>   }
>
>   static inline unsigned long __must_check __copy_to_user(void __user *to, const void *from, unsigned long n)
>   {
>  -      check_object_size(from, n, true);
>  +      kasan_check_read(from, n);
> -       return  __arch_copy_to_user(to, from, n);
> +       return __arch_copy_to_user(to, from, n);

If I'm reading correctly, this second fixup is wrong. It should read;

    kasan_check_read(from, n);
    check_object_size(from, n, true);
    return __arch_copy_to_user(to, from, n);

(i.e. fix double space between "return" and "__arch_copy..." in both
chunks and add check_object_size() calls after the kasan calls in both
chunks.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Brillo & Chrome OS Security

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with the arm64 tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Kees,

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 21:49:40 -0700 Kees Cook <keescook@google.com> wrote:
>
> If I'm reading correctly, this second fixup is wrong. It should read;
> 
>     kasan_check_read(from, n);
>     check_object_size(from, n, true);
>     return __arch_copy_to_user(to, from, n);
> 
> (i.e. fix double space between "return" and "__arch_copy..." in both
> chunks and add check_object_size() calls after the kasan calls in both
> chunks.

Yep, sorry.  I will fix it up tomorrow.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with the arm64 tree

[Kees Cook]

On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi Kees,
>
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 21:49:40 -0700 Kees Cook <keescook@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> If I'm reading correctly, this second fixup is wrong. It should read;
>>
>>     kasan_check_read(from, n);
>>     check_object_size(from, n, true);
>>     return __arch_copy_to_user(to, from, n);
>>
>> (i.e. fix double space between "return" and "__arch_copy..." in both
>> chunks and add check_object_size() calls after the kasan calls in both
>> chunks.
>
> Yep, sorry.  I will fix it up tomorrow.

Cool, thanks! :)

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Brillo & Chrome OS Security