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=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham 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 E01C9C04AB4 for ; Fri, 17 May 2019 14:49:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B13CA2082E for ; Fri, 17 May 2019 14:49:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729131AbfEQOtk (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 May 2019 10:49:40 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:44286 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729041AbfEQOtk (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 May 2019 10:49:40 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C624E1715; Fri, 17 May 2019 07:49:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from arrakis.emea.arm.com (arrakis.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.196.78]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3BA583F71E; Fri, 17 May 2019 07:49:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 15:49:31 +0100 From: Catalin Marinas To: Andrey Konovalov Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Vincenzo Frascino , Will Deacon , Mark Rutland , Andrew Morton , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Kees Cook , Yishai Hadas , Felix Kuehling , Alexander Deucher , Christian Koenig , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Jens Wiklander , Alex Williamson , Leon Romanovsky , Dmitry Vyukov , Kostya Serebryany , Evgeniy Stepanov , Lee Smith , Ramana Radhakrishnan , Jacob Bramley , Ruben Ayrapetyan , Robin Murphy , Luc Van Oostenryck , Dave Martin , Kevin Brodsky , Szabolcs Nagy Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 00/17] arm64: untag user pointers passed to the kernel Message-ID: <20190517144931.GA56186@arrakis.emea.arm.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Andrey, On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 06:30:46PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote: > One of the alternative approaches to untagging that was considered is to > completely strip the pointer tag as the pointer enters the kernel with > some kind of a syscall wrapper, but that won't work with the countless > number of different ioctl calls. With this approach we would need a custom > wrapper for each ioctl variation, which doesn't seem practical. The more I look at this problem, the less convinced I am that we can solve it in a way that results in a stable ABI covering ioctls(). While for the Android kernel codebase it could be simpler as you don't upgrade the kernel version every 2.5 months, for the mainline kernel this doesn't scale. Any run-time checks are relatively limited in terms of drivers covered. Better static checking would be nice as a long term solution but we didn't get anywhere with the discussion last year. IMO (RFC for now), I see two ways forward: 1. Make this a user space problem and do not allow tagged pointers into the syscall ABI. A libc wrapper would have to convert structures, parameters before passing them into the kernel. Note that we can still support the hardware MTE in the kernel by enabling tagged memory ranges, saving/restoring tags etc. but not allowing tagged addresses at the syscall boundary. 2. Similar shim to the above libc wrapper but inside the kernel (arch/arm64 only; most pointer arguments could be covered with an __SC_CAST similar to the s390 one). There are two differences from what we've discussed in the past: a) this is an opt-in by the user which would have to explicitly call prctl(). If it returns -ENOTSUPP etc., the user won't be allowed to pass tagged pointers to the kernel. This would probably be the responsibility of the C lib to make sure it doesn't tag heap allocations. If the user did not opt-in, the syscalls are routed through the normal path (no untagging address shim). b) ioctl() and other blacklisted syscalls (prctl) will not accept tagged pointers (to be documented in Vicenzo's ABI patches). It doesn't solve the problems we are trying to address but 2.a saves us from blindly relaxing the ABI without knowing how to easily assess new code being merged (over 500K lines between kernel versions). Existing applications (who don't opt-in) won't inadvertently start using the new ABI which could risk becoming de-facto ABI that we need to support on the long run. Option 1 wouldn't solve the ioctl() problem either and while it makes things simpler for the kernel, I am aware that it's slightly more complicated in user space (but I really don't mind if you prefer option 1 ;)). The tagged pointers (whether hwasan or MTE) should ideally be a transparent feature for the application writer but I don't think we can solve it entirely and make it seamless for the multitude of ioctls(). I'd say you only opt in to such feature if you know what you are doing and the user code takes care of specific cases like ioctl(), hence the prctl() proposal even for the hwasan. Comments welcomed. -- Catalin