From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Cc: "catalin.marinas@arm.com" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Jan Glauber <jglauber@marvell.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair <jnair@marvell.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Disable lockref on arm64
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2019 14:31:24 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201906161429.BCE1083@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu9-rZ16Nb9t3=knzW0BHu0eNxQoPwWS4c8UMMm=2iqiuw@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 04:18:21PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Yes, I am using the same saturation point as x86. In this example, I
> am not entirely sure I understand why it matters, though: the atomics
> guarantee that the write by CPU2 fails if CPU1 changed the value in
> the mean time, regardless of which value it wrote.
>
> I think the concern is more related to the likelihood of another CPU
> doing something nasty between the moment that the refcount overflows
> and the moment that the handler pins it at INT_MIN/2, e.g.,
>
> > CPU 1 CPU 2
> > inc()
> > load INT_MAX
> > about to overflow?
> > yes
> >
> > set to 0
> > <insert exploit here>
> > set to INT_MIN/2
Ah, gotcha, but the "set to 0" is really "set to INT_MAX+1" (not zero)
if you're using the same saturation.
--
Kees Cook
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair <jnair@marvell.com>,
"catalin.marinas@arm.com" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Jan Glauber <jglauber@marvell.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Disable lockref on arm64
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2019 14:31:24 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201906161429.BCE1083@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu9-rZ16Nb9t3=knzW0BHu0eNxQoPwWS4c8UMMm=2iqiuw@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 04:18:21PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Yes, I am using the same saturation point as x86. In this example, I
> am not entirely sure I understand why it matters, though: the atomics
> guarantee that the write by CPU2 fails if CPU1 changed the value in
> the mean time, regardless of which value it wrote.
>
> I think the concern is more related to the likelihood of another CPU
> doing something nasty between the moment that the refcount overflows
> and the moment that the handler pins it at INT_MIN/2, e.g.,
>
> > CPU 1 CPU 2
> > inc()
> > load INT_MAX
> > about to overflow?
> > yes
> >
> > set to 0
> > <insert exploit here>
> > set to INT_MIN/2
Ah, gotcha, but the "set to 0" is really "set to INT_MAX+1" (not zero)
if you're using the same saturation.
--
Kees Cook
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-16 21:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 74+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-29 14:52 [RFC] Disable lockref on arm64 Jan Glauber
2019-04-29 14:52 ` Jan Glauber
2019-05-01 16:01 ` Will Deacon
2019-05-01 16:01 ` Will Deacon
2019-05-02 8:38 ` Jan Glauber
2019-05-02 8:38 ` Jan Glauber
2019-05-01 16:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-01 16:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-02 8:27 ` Jan Glauber
2019-05-02 8:27 ` Jan Glauber
2019-05-02 16:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-02 16:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-02 23:19 ` Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair
2019-05-02 23:19 ` Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair
2019-05-03 19:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-03 19:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-06 6:13 ` [EXT] " Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair
2019-05-06 6:13 ` Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair
2019-05-06 17:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-06 17:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-06 18:10 ` Will Deacon
2019-05-06 18:10 ` Will Deacon
2019-05-18 4:24 ` Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair
2019-05-18 4:24 ` Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair
2019-05-18 10:00 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-05-18 10:00 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-05-22 16:04 ` Will Deacon
2019-05-22 16:04 ` Will Deacon
2019-06-12 4:10 ` Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair
2019-06-12 4:10 ` Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair
2019-06-12 9:31 ` Will Deacon
2019-06-12 9:31 ` Will Deacon
2019-06-14 7:09 ` Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair
2019-06-14 7:09 ` Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair
2019-06-14 9:58 ` Will Deacon
2019-06-14 9:58 ` Will Deacon
2019-06-14 10:24 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-06-14 10:24 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-06-14 10:38 ` Will Deacon
2019-06-14 10:38 ` Will Deacon
2019-06-15 4:21 ` Kees Cook
2019-06-15 4:21 ` Kees Cook
2019-06-15 8:47 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-06-15 8:47 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-06-15 13:59 ` Kees Cook
2019-06-15 13:59 ` Kees Cook
2019-06-15 14:18 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-06-15 14:18 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-06-16 21:31 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2019-06-16 21:31 ` Kees Cook
2019-06-17 11:33 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-06-17 11:33 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-06-17 17:26 ` Will Deacon
2019-06-17 17:26 ` Will Deacon
2019-06-17 20:07 ` Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair
2019-06-17 20:07 ` Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair
2019-06-18 5:41 ` Kees Cook
2019-06-18 5:41 ` Kees Cook
2019-06-13 9:53 ` Hanjun Guo
2019-06-13 9:53 ` Hanjun Guo
2019-06-05 13:48 ` [PATCH] lockref: Limit number of cmpxchg loop retries Jan Glauber
2019-06-05 13:48 ` Jan Glauber
2019-06-05 20:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-06-05 20:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-06-06 8:03 ` Jan Glauber
2019-06-06 8:03 ` Jan Glauber
2019-06-06 9:41 ` Will Deacon
2019-06-06 9:41 ` Will Deacon
2019-06-06 10:28 ` Jan Glauber
2019-06-06 10:28 ` Jan Glauber
2019-06-07 7:27 ` Jan Glauber
2019-06-07 7:27 ` Jan Glauber
2019-06-07 20:14 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-06-07 20:14 ` Linus Torvalds
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=201906161429.BCE1083@keescook \
--to=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=jglauber@marvell.com \
--cc=jnair@marvell.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--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 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.