From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Brodsky Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 03/14] lib, arm64: untag user pointers in strn*_user Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 11:33:14 +0000 Message-ID: <5de82e7d-6091-e694-8397-fbcfd59f9d0b__29180.413430889$1552908887$gmane$org@arm.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-GB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Andrey Konovalov , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Mark Rutland , Robin Murphy , Kees Cook , Kate Stewart , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , Shuah Khan , Vincenzo Frascino , Eric Dumazet , "David S. Miller" , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Steven Rostedt , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.orglin Cc: Chintan Pandya , Jacob Bramley , Ruben Ayrapetyan , Szabolcs Nagy , Lee Smith , Kostya Serebryany , Dmitry Vyukov , Ramana Radhakrishnan , Luc Van Oostenryck , Dave Martin , Evgeniy Stepanov List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On 15/03/2019 19:51, Andrey Konovalov wrote: > This patch is a part of a series that extends arm64 kernel ABI to allow to > pass tagged user pointers (with the top byte set to something else other > than 0x00) as syscall arguments. > > strncpy_from_user and strnlen_user accept user addresses as arguments, and > do not go through the same path as copy_from_user and others, so here we > need to handle the case of tagged user addresses separately. > > Untag user pointers passed to these functions. > > Note, that this patch only temporarily untags the pointers to perform > validity checks, but then uses them as is to perform user memory accesses. Thank you for this new version, looks good to me. To give a bit of context to the readers, I asked Andrey to make this change, because it makes a difference with hardware memory tagging. Indeed, in that situation, it is always preferable to access the memory using the user-provided tag, so that tag checking can take place; if there is a mismatch, a tag fault will occur (which is handled in a way similar to a page fault). It is also preferable not to assume that an untagged user pointer (tag 0x0) bypasses tag checks. Kevin > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov > --- > lib/strncpy_from_user.c | 3 ++- > lib/strnlen_user.c | 3 ++- > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/strncpy_from_user.c b/lib/strncpy_from_user.c > index 58eacd41526c..6209bb9507c7 100644 > --- a/lib/strncpy_from_user.c > +++ b/lib/strncpy_from_user.c > @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ > #include > #include > #include > +#include > > #include > #include > @@ -107,7 +108,7 @@ long strncpy_from_user(char *dst, const char __user *src, long count) > return 0; > > max_addr = user_addr_max(); > - src_addr = (unsigned long)src; > + src_addr = (unsigned long)untagged_addr(src); > if (likely(src_addr < max_addr)) { > unsigned long max = max_addr - src_addr; > long retval; > diff --git a/lib/strnlen_user.c b/lib/strnlen_user.c > index 1c1a1b0e38a5..8ca3d2ac32ec 100644 > --- a/lib/strnlen_user.c > +++ b/lib/strnlen_user.c > @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ > #include > #include > #include > +#include > > #include > > @@ -109,7 +110,7 @@ long strnlen_user(const char __user *str, long count) > return 0; > > max_addr = user_addr_max(); > - src_addr = (unsigned long)str; > + src_addr = (unsigned long)untagged_addr(str); > if (likely(src_addr < max_addr)) { > unsigned long max = max_addr - src_addr; > long retval;