All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Grazvydas Ignotas <notasas@gmail.com>,
	Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] (Was: Linux 3.11-rc4)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 09:25:54 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFybUdO10FVZPTbWyUE4eKxiEPYD0N=ZwHkOUNJbCvyT=w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130808154107.GA28971@redhat.com>

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On x86 execute breakpoints are only a single byte, which has to be
> the first byte of the instruction. IOW the hardware requires len = 1
> in dr7 or it doesn't work (iirc).
>
> But for some reason perf requires bp_len = sizeof(long), not 1. And
> note that it sets info->len = X86_BREAKPOINT_LEN_X. The comment says:
>
>         x86 inst breakpoints need to have a specific undefined len
>
> but despite its "special" name LEN_X is simply LEN_1, and other code
> relies on this fact.
>
> Now, ptrace correctly requires DR_LEN_1. So arch_bp_generic_fields()
> translates this into "gen_len = sizeof(long)" for validation.

Yeah, that just sounds insane. I suspect it's some misguided attempt
to be compatible either with some broken old version of perf. But if
so, I agree that the compatibility code should be elsewhere, and not
in "let's turn the _correct_ length of 1 into some random crap because
we screwed up elsewhere".

>> But the kernel address checking definitely needs to stay around for
>> security reasons.
>
> Sure. And btw it doesn't look right. I sent the patch below twice (iirc),
> perhaps I should resend it again.

Your patch looks correct.

That said,

> -       return (va >= TASK_SIZE) && ((va + len - 1) >= TASK_SIZE);
> +       return (va >= TASK_SIZE) || ((va + len - 1) >= TASK_SIZE);

I'd much rather make this be more clearly about overflow, and write
this as something like

    last = va + len - 1;
    /* Check for overflow too */
    if (last < va || end >= TASK_SIZE)

because quite frankly, the "va >= TASK_SIZE" check is kind of insane.
It makes very little semantic sense. The rewritten test can be seen as
two independent tests that both make sense individually (the first
checks for overflow, the second checks that the range isn't in kernel
space).

In fact, the overflow check could/should even be done in generic code,
methinks. There's nothing architecture-specific about that.

                   Linus

  reply	other threads:[~2013-08-08 16:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-08-04 21:09 Linux 3.11-rc4 Linus Torvalds
2013-08-05  2:34 ` O_TMPFILE fs corruption (Re: Linux 3.11-rc4) Andy Lutomirski
2013-08-05  3:45   ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-05  4:45     ` Andrew Lutomirski
2013-08-05  8:26     ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-08-05 16:04       ` Jörn Engel
2013-08-05 14:31     ` Al Viro
2013-08-05  4:20 ` Linux 3.11-rc4 Felipe Contreras
2013-08-05 13:29   ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-05 14:27     ` Felipe Contreras
2013-08-05 14:39       ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-05 17:02         ` Felipe Contreras
2013-08-05 17:11           ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-05 17:40             ` Felipe Contreras
2013-08-05 17:56               ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-05 17:39     ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-05 17:43       ` Felipe Contreras
2013-08-05 18:08         ` Felipe Contreras
2013-08-05 17:47       ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-05 18:46   ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-05 18:54     ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-05 18:57       ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-05 19:06         ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-06 15:43   ` [PATCH 0/1] (Was: Linux 3.11-rc4) Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-06 15:43     ` [PATCH 1/1] Revert "ptrace: PTRACE_DETACH should do flush_ptrace_hw_breakpoint(child)" Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-07 12:05     ` [PATCH 0/1] (Was: Linux 3.11-rc4) Grazvydas Ignotas
2013-08-07 17:22       ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-07 19:26       ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-07 19:27         ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-07 19:47           ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-08 15:41             ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-08 16:25               ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2013-08-08 16:54               ` Frederic Weisbecker
2013-08-08 18:15                 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-09 16:45                   ` Frederic Weisbecker
2013-08-09 17:12                     ` Oleg Nesterov

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='CA+55aFybUdO10FVZPTbWyUE4eKxiEPYD0N=ZwHkOUNJbCvyT=w@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dvlasenk@redhat.com \
    --cc=felipe.contreras@gmail.com \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=notasas@gmail.com \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.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.