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=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT 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 E479BC282DD for ; Thu, 23 May 2019 00:20:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9515A2089E for ; Thu, 23 May 2019 00:20:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ziepe.ca header.i=@ziepe.ca header.b="b1PxbkXj" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728784AbfEWAU4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 May 2019 20:20:56 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-f194.google.com ([209.85.160.194]:43145 "EHLO mail-qt1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727691AbfEWAUz (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 May 2019 20:20:55 -0400 Received: by mail-qt1-f194.google.com with SMTP id i26so4694945qtr.10 for ; Wed, 22 May 2019 17:20:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ziepe.ca; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=kja4wR6FLtasYFQS1xUbhik8iG88bHuMFvf2ArrK0nw=; b=b1PxbkXji6rxJkxXzX+E8hmtsDc4EAG6spndGBpqTY6Mtd1Z82qmKG7IFdzEDWmzKK cpfPgmFkndIKUtDn3lZmf4ZAYcKRjit4YkqMU72A44nfyHayfu0+OGxh9SgysS/YRAv2 RDEnuh2qly9nvvswbClZIbFXuZCzwJj2KYSwWCU/YgJUugR9fRVuJUTKIe2+8zLwiPOj anBDeIuRaK3lpaZn56KojfHXM/H6EWmNRZuecl/6erGrJ5dc4+VdWT4yxUQf8Rpv9nUY hRDkUmUo3tTzvQuC1Vf8iYC9BBrTle8EWAWahcABrO+2gaF43DLowx5aiqsiUBpSVZlJ 7EAg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=kja4wR6FLtasYFQS1xUbhik8iG88bHuMFvf2ArrK0nw=; b=IwxNrp8Jq8pc2kv+dVan8YrIu1p8fxaBuFOHKB6MRj9jR7S5CxUs3QGiLEC1OfnkZa A5G9qKl+B7VRjEq4nt/fmoPX/GdN3UWZTIM+5XwCcGaVjoZzl9cK6KiRRFzhC2186jgO ariig60NSwf8VdAN3rGQn0ywZZWju/RX60nelT54/lBoDf0R5sjC2zYZfx4FfsloH5/3 n/5OPBTP4X0PUxZ0mdDdSU+FkvDwfD24x7UHlEfXSsFA7f3D9FVkIBF3myCkOPfuYThS ffpDwfJteIDcTxjTTBozAh0tksQQ8j0miYinHVwMz9wQC3kv6kcmTkASWXVvbzqeAIuf AZRA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUv5gPHMrDGhBeu4+v/Xhho6GYW4wgBxwoLtq+9aocJjb2A7aqD 2oq828lE9VJpI8nRxLODlfPEZQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwzvo9H/aW7qSfx2OQVIHnUtdd1Cyzpi6J44RNo2JLbDhDXh7kfDH2OJy33sD2sQGXynL6VQQ== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:f71:: with SMTP id l46mr70609860qtk.321.1558570854263; Wed, 22 May 2019 17:20:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ziepe.ca (hlfxns017vw-156-34-49-251.dhcp-dynamic.fibreop.ns.bellaliant.net. [156.34.49.251]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t30sm15637238qtc.80.2019.05.22.17.20.53 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 22 May 2019 17:20:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jgg by mlx.ziepe.ca with local (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1hTbTZ-0001Zh-03; Wed, 22 May 2019 21:20:53 -0300 Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 21:20:52 -0300 From: Jason Gunthorpe To: Dave Martin Cc: Catalin Marinas , Mark Rutland , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Szabolcs Nagy , Will Deacon , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Felix Kuehling , Vincenzo Frascino , Jacob Bramley , Leon Romanovsky , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Dmitry Vyukov , Evgeniy Stepanov , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, Kevin Brodsky , Kees Cook , Ruben Ayrapetyan , Andrey Konovalov , Ramana Radhakrishnan , Alex Williamson , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Kostya Serebryany , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Yishai Hadas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jens Wiklander , Lee Smith , Alexander Deucher , Andrew Morton , Robin Murphy , Christian Koenig , Luc Van Oostenryck Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 00/17] arm64: untag user pointers passed to the kernel Message-ID: <20190523002052.GF15389@ziepe.ca> References: <20190517144931.GA56186@arrakis.emea.arm.com> <20190521184856.GC2922@ziepe.ca> <20190522134925.GV28398@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190522134925.GV28398@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 02:49:28PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 03:48:56PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 03:49:31PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > I'm not sure such a dire view is warrented.. > > > > The ioctl situation is not so bad, other than a few special cases, > > most drivers just take a 'void __user *' and pass it as an argument to > > some function that accepts a 'void __user *'. sparse et al verify > > this. > > > > As long as the core functions do the right thing the drivers will be > > OK. > > > > The only place things get dicy is if someone casts to unsigned long > > (ie for vma work) but I think that reflects that our driver facing > > APIs for VMAs are compatible with static analysis (ie I have no > > earthly idea why get_user_pages() accepts an unsigned long), not that > > this is too hard. > > If multiple people will care about this, perhaps we should try to > annotate types more explicitly in SYSCALL_DEFINEx() and ABI data > structures. > > For example, we could have a couple of mutually exclusive modifiers > > T __object * > T __vaddr * (or U __vaddr) > > In the first case the pointer points to an object (in the C sense) > that the call may dereference but not use for any other purpose. How would you use these two differently? So far the kernel has worked that __user should tag any pointer that is from userspace and then you can't do anything with it until you transform it into a kernel something > to tell static analysers the real type of pointers smuggled through > UAPI disguised as other types (*cough* KVM, etc.) Yes, that would help alot, we often have to pass pointers through a u64 in the uAPI, and there is no static checker support to make sure they are run through the u64_to_user_ptr() helper. Jason