linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>
To: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] arm64: Define Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.rst
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 11:32:09 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <52fa2cfc-f7a6-af6f-0dc2-f9ea0e41ac3c@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190725135044.24381-2-vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>

Some more comments. Mostly minor wording issues, except the prctl() exclusion at the end.

On 25/07/2019 14:50, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> On arm64 the TCR_EL1.TBI0 bit has been always enabled hence
> the userspace (EL0) is allowed to set a non-zero value in the
> top byte but the resulting pointers are not allowed at the
> user-kernel syscall ABI boundary.
>
> With the relaxed ABI proposed through this document, it is now possible
> to pass tagged pointers to the syscalls, when these pointers are in
> memory ranges obtained by an anonymous (MAP_ANONYMOUS) mmap().
>
> This change in the ABI requires a mechanism to requires the userspace
> to opt-in to such an option.
>
> Specify and document the way in which sysctl and prctl() can be used
> in combination to allow the userspace to opt-in this feature.
>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> CC: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>
> Acked-by: Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>
> ---
>   Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.rst | 148 +++++++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 148 insertions(+)
>   create mode 100644 Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.rst
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.rst b/Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.rst
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..a8ecb991de82
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.rst
> @@ -0,0 +1,148 @@
> +========================
> +ARM64 TAGGED ADDRESS ABI
> +========================
> +
> +Author: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>
> +
> +Date: 25 July 2019
> +
> +This document describes the usage and semantics of the Tagged Address
> +ABI on arm64.
> +
> +1. Introduction
> +---------------
> +
> +On arm64 the TCR_EL1.TBI0 bit has always been enabled on the kernel, hence
> +the userspace (EL0) is entitled to perform a user memory access through a
> +64-bit pointer with a non-zero top byte but the resulting pointers are not
> +allowed at the user-kernel syscall ABI boundary.
> +
> +This document describes a relaxation of the ABI that makes it possible to
> +to pass tagged pointers to the syscalls, when these pointers are in memory

One too many "to" (at the end the previous line).

> +ranges obtained as described in section 2.
> +
> +Since it is not desirable to relax the ABI to allow tagged user addresses
> +into the kernel indiscriminately, arm64 provides a new sysctl interface
> +(/proc/sys/abi/tagged_addr) that is used to prevent the applications from
> +enabling the relaxed ABI and a new prctl() interface that can be used to
> +enable or disable the relaxed ABI.
> +A detailed description of the newly introduced mechanisms will be provided
> +in section 2.
> +
> +2. ARM64 Tagged Address ABI
> +---------------------------
> +
> +From the kernel syscall interface perspective, we define, for the purposes
> +of this document, a "valid tagged pointer" as a pointer that either has a
> +zero value set in the top byte or has a non-zero value, is in memory ranges
> +privately owned by a userspace process and is obtained in one of the
> +following ways:
> +- mmap() done by the process itself, where either:
> +
> +  - flags have **MAP_PRIVATE** and **MAP_ANONYMOUS**
> +  - flags have **MAP_PRIVATE** and the file descriptor refers to a regular
> +    file or **/dev/zero**
> +
> +- brk() system call done by the process itself (i.e. the heap area between
> +  the initial location of the program break at process creation and its
> +  current location).
> +- any memory mapped by the kernel in the process's address space during
> +  creation and with the same restrictions as for mmap() (e.g. data, bss,
> +  stack).
> +
> +The ARM64 Tagged Address ABI is an opt-in feature, and an application can
> +control it using the following:
> +
> +- **/proc/sys/abi/tagged_addr**: a new sysctl interface that can be used to
> +  prevent the applications from enabling the access to the relaxed ABI.
> +  The sysctl supports the following configuration options:
> +
> +  - **0**: Disable the access to the ARM64 Tagged Address ABI for all
> +    the applications.
> +  - **1** (Default): Enable the access to the ARM64 Tagged Address ABI for
> +    all the applications.
> +
> +   If the access to the ARM64 Tagged Address ABI is disabled at a certain
> +   point in time, all the applications that were using tagging before this
> +   event occurs, will continue to use tagging.

"tagging" may be misinterpreted here. I would be more explicit by saying that the 
tagged address ABI remains enabled in processes that opted in before the access got 
disabled.

> +- **prctl()s**:
> +
> +  - **PR_SET_TAGGED_ADDR_CTRL**: Invoked by a process, can be used to enable or
> +    disable its access to the ARM64 Tagged Address ABI.

I still find the wording confusing, because "access to the ABI" is not used 
consistently. The "tagged_addr" sysctl enables *access to the ABI*, that's fine. 
However, PR_SET_TAGGED_ADDR_CTRL enables *the ABI itself* (which is only possible if 
access to the ABI is enabled).

> +
> +    The (unsigned int) arg2 argument is a bit mask describing the control mode
> +    used:
> +
> +    - **PR_TAGGED_ADDR_ENABLE**: Enable ARM64 Tagged Address ABI.
> +
> +    The prctl(PR_SET_TAGGED_ADDR_CTRL, ...) will return -EINVAL if the ARM64
> +    Tagged Address ABI is not available.

For clarity, it would be good to mention that one possible reason for the ABI not to 
be available is tagged_addr == 0.

> +
> +    The arguments arg3, arg4, and arg5 are ignored.
> +  - **PR_GET_TAGGED_ADDR_CTRL**: can be used to check the status of the Tagged
> +    Address ABI.
> +
> +    The arguments arg2, arg3, arg4, and arg5 are ignored.
> +
> +The ABI properties set by the mechanisms described above are inherited by threads
> +of the same application and fork()'ed children but cleared by execve().
> +
> +When a process has successfully opted into the new ABI by invoking
> +PR_SET_TAGGED_ADDR_CTRL prctl(), this guarantees the following behaviours:
> +
> + - Every currently available syscall, except the cases mentioned in section 3, can
> +   accept any valid tagged pointer. The same rule is applicable to any syscall
> +   introduced in the future.

I thought Catalin wanted to drop this guarantee?

> + - If a non valid tagged pointer is passed to a syscall then the behaviour
> +   is undefined.
> + - Every valid tagged pointer is expected to work as an untagged one.
> + - The kernel preserves any valid tagged pointer and returns it to the
> +   userspace unchanged (i.e. on syscall return) in all the cases except the
> +   ones documented in the "Preserving tags" section of tagged-pointers.txt.
> +
> +A definition of the meaning of tagged pointers on arm64 can be found in:
> +Documentation/arm64/tagged-pointers.txt.
> +
> +3. ARM64 Tagged Address ABI Exceptions
> +--------------------------------------
> +
> +The behaviours described in section 2, with particular reference to the
> +acceptance by the syscalls of any valid tagged pointer are not applicable
> +to the following cases:
> +
> + - mmap() addr parameter.
> + - mremap() new_address parameter.
> + - prctl(PR_SET_MM, PR_SET_MM_MAP, ...) struct prctl_mm_map fields.
> + - prctl(PR_SET_MM, PR_SET_MM_MAP_SIZE, ...) struct prctl_mm_map fields.

All the PR_SET_MM options that specify pointers (PR_SET_MM_START_CODE, 
PR_SET_MM_END_CODE, ...) should be excluded as well. AFAICT (but don't take my word 
for it), that's all of them except PR_SET_MM_EXE_FILE. Conversely, PR_SET_MM_MAP_SIZE 
should not be excluded (it does not pass a prctl_mm_map struct, and the pointer to 
unsigned int can be tagged).

Kevin

> +
> +Any attempt to use non-zero tagged pointers will lead to undefined behaviour.
> +
> +4. Example of correct usage
> +---------------------------
> +.. code-block:: c
> +
> +   void main(void)
> +   {
> +           static int tbi_enabled = 0;
> +           unsigned long tag = 0;
> +
> +           char *ptr = mmap(NULL, PAGE_SIZE, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
> +                            MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0);
> +
> +           if (prctl(PR_SET_TAGGED_ADDR_CTRL, PR_TAGGED_ADDR_ENABLE,
> +                     0, 0, 0) == 0)
> +                   tbi_enabled = 1;
> +
> +           if (ptr == (void *)-1) /* MAP_FAILED */
> +                   return -1;
> +
> +           if (tbi_enabled)
> +                   tag = rand() & 0xff;
> +
> +           ptr = (char *)((unsigned long)ptr | (tag << TAG_SHIFT));
> +
> +           *ptr = 'a';
> +
> +           ...
> +   }
> +

  reply	other threads:[~2019-07-30 10:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-07-23 17:58 [PATCH v19 00/15] arm64: untag user pointers passed to the kernel Andrey Konovalov
2019-07-23 17:58 ` [PATCH v19 01/15] arm64: untag user pointers in access_ok and __uaccess_mask_ptr Andrey Konovalov
2019-07-23 17:58 ` [PATCH v19 02/15] arm64: Introduce prctl() options to control the tagged user addresses ABI Andrey Konovalov
2019-07-31 17:05   ` Dave Hansen
2019-08-01 12:38     ` Kevin Brodsky
2019-08-01 16:45       ` Dave Hansen
2019-08-02 10:50         ` Catalin Marinas
2019-08-09 16:08   ` Catalin Marinas
2019-07-23 17:58 ` [PATCH v19 03/15] lib: untag user pointers in strn*_user Andrey Konovalov
2019-07-23 17:58 ` [PATCH v19 04/15] mm: untag user pointers passed to memory syscalls Andrey Konovalov
2019-08-09 16:03   ` Catalin Marinas
2019-07-23 17:58 ` [PATCH v19 05/15] mm: untag user pointers in mm/gup.c Andrey Konovalov
2019-07-23 17:58 ` [PATCH v19 06/15] mm: untag user pointers in get_vaddr_frames Andrey Konovalov
2019-07-23 17:58 ` [PATCH v19 07/15] fs/namespace: untag user pointers in copy_mount_options Andrey Konovalov
2019-07-23 17:58 ` [PATCH v19 08/15] userfaultfd: untag user pointers Andrey Konovalov
2019-07-23 17:58 ` [PATCH v19 09/15] drm/amdgpu: " Andrey Konovalov
2019-07-23 17:58 ` [PATCH v19 10/15] drm/radeon: untag user pointers in radeon_gem_userptr_ioctl Andrey Konovalov
2019-07-23 17:58 ` [PATCH v19 11/15] IB/mlx4: untag user pointers in mlx4_get_umem_mr Andrey Konovalov
2019-07-24 19:25   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-07-25 11:17     ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-07-23 17:58 ` [PATCH v19 12/15] media/v4l2-core: untag user pointers in videobuf_dma_contig_user_get Andrey Konovalov
2019-07-23 17:58 ` [PATCH v19 13/15] tee/shm: untag user pointers in tee_shm_register Andrey Konovalov
2019-07-23 17:58 ` [PATCH v19 14/15] vfio/type1: untag user pointers in vaddr_get_pfn Andrey Konovalov
2019-07-23 17:58 ` [PATCH v19 15/15] selftests, arm64: add a selftest for passing tagged pointers to kernel Andrey Konovalov
2019-07-23 18:03 ` [PATCH v19 00/15] arm64: untag user pointers passed to the kernel Andrey Konovalov
2019-07-24 14:02   ` Will Deacon
2019-07-24 14:16     ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-07-24 14:20       ` Will Deacon
2019-07-24 17:12         ` Vincenzo Frascino
2019-08-06 17:13         ` Will Deacon
2019-08-07 17:17           ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-08-08 21:12             ` Kees Cook
2019-08-08 22:33               ` Andrew Morton
2019-08-08 23:09                 ` Kees Cook
2019-08-09  9:00                   ` Catalin Marinas
2019-08-09  9:28                     ` Dave Martin
2019-07-25 13:50 ` [PATCH v6 0/2] arm64 relaxed ABI Vincenzo Frascino
2019-07-25 13:50   ` [PATCH v6 1/2] arm64: Define Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.rst Vincenzo Frascino
2019-07-30 10:32     ` Kevin Brodsky [this message]
2019-07-30 13:25       ` Vincenzo Frascino
2019-07-30 13:57         ` Kevin Brodsky
2019-07-30 14:24           ` Vincenzo Frascino
2019-07-30 14:48             ` Kevin Brodsky
2019-07-31 16:43     ` Dave Hansen
2019-08-02 10:08       ` Catalin Marinas
2019-07-25 13:50   ` [PATCH v6 2/2] arm64: Relax Documentation/arm64/tagged-pointers.rst Vincenzo Frascino
2019-07-31 16:50 ` [PATCH v19 00/15] arm64: untag user pointers passed to the kernel Dave Hansen
2019-08-01 12:11   ` Kevin Brodsky
2019-08-01 12:48     ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-08-01 15:36       ` Dave Hansen
2019-08-02 10:20         ` Catalin Marinas

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=52fa2cfc-f7a6-af6f-0dc2-f9ea0e41ac3c@arm.com \
    --to=kevin.brodsky@arm.com \
    --cc=andreyknvl@google.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=szabolcs.nagy@arm.com \
    --cc=vincenzo.frascino@arm.com \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).