From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADF04C282CE for ; Wed, 22 May 2019 23:03:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50299206BA for ; Wed, 22 May 2019 23:03:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="R1whbY0D" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728221AbfEVXDw (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 May 2019 19:03:52 -0400 Received: from mail-vk1-f193.google.com ([209.85.221.193]:39387 "EHLO mail-vk1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727638AbfEVXDv (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 May 2019 19:03:51 -0400 Received: by mail-vk1-f193.google.com with SMTP id t18so932569vkb.6 for ; Wed, 22 May 2019 16:03:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=083fICcLHdIZzVNufU25syYhE84WJwTKtiHOZtf8SA0=; b=R1whbY0DRJvYeo6WDezCnq6bV0i36te0/v1SFgHuDKDfWdFfZ1uqlfu6C2/257hQWf 13OBZbWoVT2d4n1OkMyYTaJdzzdNJVODvxD7ax/78bOTFn0UZG6rkpjhsDxguOSNWQSW /pem354o3ayyWSPYKkkwbewRgzXJsoaUxgC/ouAEGxy6liid3L/+YVw/SLmKu4nN5deA sI1HZSYq1Jfkv/d/KsZmiH7dePki/Ktib/+2n6rc/FESU7nQ1RBKbd2tskxVzb2WzGm/ +2fOWm+jMAJ/JCuclmW37/f6kDPw2o5cg4ErXP4x4jo4xyXhp8lPR9gvbLshZk81RzVf ErKA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=083fICcLHdIZzVNufU25syYhE84WJwTKtiHOZtf8SA0=; b=MKNtnKyTrWkqzThs4PA8k1db8n0jgckbEDP3F0mHibSoJWCkvhTt8dmoEAjJS4xqzF 6NuF2N57jfhzsT4gj1cBauiT6irBqng71zlCAK+rsQ9PW4nq4kyLdG3fVQ8PCXIb1oqN m2hsZoFdFQNgDU/Exg2IdDJC87d9Q/uuG7nb2OrWTXbKfC+3UZ728WfS+yUxE6N7MvbY KBWcSk7V398u9dS/iISXYY8XvlyxRI7vtOKMitTeohb1WT8+4M1BnTwYI4wIIJ01Axxy MkyyYUfqn58ALQPNKoYpLkKkESFIOBl2FvB99jg58EUIXDxef2/iWDnFF1s9KPxcjklx x7qQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXBaoiCOh7pmpFPgVLyQamRAzNnhTFJ4CQjwVRtmGDTkbh6Hgto O1F0nabDaG55aY/jvN9OUnJmKE4NQML/GbAxQZ6BcA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxPKtiNPawqkCkuPCNw0GStvO0zt/hmYPvT2nokhB6CEYZVKos9gwheEkiU5Yy2rN1PLFcfrDl2WDUSCoUDbnM= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:4ec6:: with SMTP id c189mr128107vkb.17.1558566229772; Wed, 22 May 2019 16:03:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190517144931.GA56186@arrakis.emea.arm.com> <20190521182932.sm4vxweuwo5ermyd@mbp> <201905211633.6C0BF0C2@keescook> <20190522101110.m2stmpaj7seezveq@mbp> <20190522163527.rnnc6t4tll7tk5zw@mbp> <201905221316.865581CF@keescook> In-Reply-To: <201905221316.865581CF@keescook> From: Evgenii Stepanov Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 16:03:36 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 00/17] arm64: untag user pointers passed to the kernel To: Kees Cook Cc: Catalin Marinas , enh , Andrey Konovalov , Khalid Aziz , Linux ARM , Linux Memory Management List , LKML , amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , Vincenzo Frascino , Will Deacon , Mark Rutland , Andrew Morton , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Yishai Hadas , Felix Kuehling , Alexander Deucher , Christian Koenig , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Jens Wiklander , Alex Williamson , Leon Romanovsky , Dmitry Vyukov , Kostya Serebryany , Lee Smith , Ramana Radhakrishnan , Jacob Bramley , Ruben Ayrapetyan , Robin Murphy , Luc Van Oostenryck , Dave Martin , Kevin Brodsky , Szabolcs Nagy Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-media@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 1:47 PM Kees Cook wrote: > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 05:35:27PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > The two hard requirements I have for supporting any new hardware feature > > in Linux are (1) a single kernel image binary continues to run on old > > hardware while making use of the new feature if available and (2) old > > user space continues to run on new hardware while new user space can > > take advantage of the new feature. > > Agreed! And I think the series meets these requirements, yes? > > > For MTE, we just can't enable it by default since there are applications > > who use the top byte of a pointer and expect it to be ignored rather > > than failing with a mismatched tag. Just think of a hwasan compiled > > binary where TBI is expected to work and you try to run it with MTE > > turned on. > > Ah! Okay, here's the use-case I wasn't thinking of: the concern is TBI > conflicting with MTE. And anything that starts using TBI suddenly can't > run in the future because it's being interpreted as MTE bits? (Is that > the ABI concern? I feel like we got into the weeds about ioctl()s and > one-off bugs...) > > So there needs to be some way to let the kernel know which of three > things it should be doing: > 1- leaving userspace addresses as-is (present) > 2- wiping the top bits before using (this series) > 3- wiping the top bits for most things, but retaining them for MTE as > needed (the future) > > I expect MTE to be the "default" in the future. Once a system's libc has > grown support for it, everything will be trying to use MTE. TBI will be > the special case (but TBI is effectively a prerequisite). > > AFAICT, the only difference I see between 2 and 3 will be the tag handling > in usercopy (all other places will continue to ignore the top bits). Is > that accurate? > > Is "1" a per-process state we want to keep? (I assume not, but rather it > is available via no TBI/MTE CONFIG or a boot-time option, if at all?) > > To choose between "2" and "3", it seems we need a per-process flag to > opt into TBI (and out of MTE). For userspace, how would a future binary > choose TBI over MTE? If it's a library issue, we can't use an ELF bit, > since the choice may be "late" after ELF load (this implies the need > for a prctl().) If it's binary-only ("built with HWKASan") then an ELF > bit seems sufficient. And without the marking, I'd expect the kernel to > enforce MTE when there are high bits. > > > I would also expect the C library or dynamic loader to check for the > > presence of a HWCAP_MTE bit before starting to tag memory allocations, > > otherwise it would get SIGILL on the first MTE instruction it tries to > > execute. > > I've got the same question as Elliot: aren't MTE instructions just NOP > to older CPUs? I.e. if the CPU (or kernel) don't support it, it just > gets entirely ignored: checking is only needed to satisfy curiosity > or behavioral expectations. MTE instructions are not NOP. Most of them have side effects (changing register values, zeroing memory). This only matters for stack tagging, though. Heap tagging is a runtime decision in the allocator. If an image needs to run on old hardware, it will have to do heap tagging only. > To me, the conflict seems to be using TBI in the face of expecting MTE to > be the default state of the future. (But the internal changes needed > for TBI -- this series -- is a prereq for MTE.) > > -- > Kees Cook