From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
To: Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@google.com>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@google.com>,
Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>,
linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
David Spickett <david.spickett@linaro.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 8/8] arm64: expose FAR_EL1 tag bits in siginfo
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 17:54:51 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201102175451.GF6882@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2dec46a70da175478932d034ebe74d0b4f5133c4.1602892799.git.pcc@google.com>
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 05:12:33PM -0700, Peter Collingbourne wrote:
> The kernel currently clears the tag bits (i.e. bits 56-63) in the fault
> address exposed via siginfo.si_addr and sigcontext.fault_address. However,
> the tag bits may be needed by tools in order to accurately diagnose
> memory errors, such as HWASan [1] or future tools based on the Memory
> Tagging Extension (MTE).
>
> We should not stop clearing these bits in the existing fault address
> fields, because there may be existing userspace applications that are
> expecting the tag bits to be cleared. Instead, create a new pair of
> union fields in siginfo._sigfault, and store the tag bits of FAR_EL1
> there, together with a mask specifying which bits are valid.
>
> A flag is added to si_xflags to allow userspace to determine whether
> the values in the fields are valid.
>
> [1] http://clang.llvm.org/docs/HardwareAssistedAddressSanitizerDesign.html
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>
> Link: https://linux-review.googlesource.com/id/Ia8876bad8c798e0a32df7c2ce1256c4771c81446
> ---
> v12:
> - add new fields to signal_compat.c test cases
> - rebased to 5.10-rc1
> - mask out bits 63:60 for tag check faults
>
> v11:
> - add a comment explaining what the arch hook should do
> - rename ignored bits to tag bits
>
> v10:
> - rename the flag to SIXFLAG_ADDR_IGNORED_BITS
> - use an arch hook to specify which bits are ignored, instead
> of passing them explicitly
> - while refactoring for the arch hook, noticed that my previous
> patches missed a case involving cache maintenance instructions,
> so expose the tag bits for that signal as well
>
> v9:
> - make the ignored bits fields generic
> - add some new dependent patches that prepare us to store the
> field in such a way that userspace can detect their presence
>
> v8:
> - rebase onto 5.8rc2
>
> v7:
> - switch to a new siginfo field instead of using sigcontext
> - merge the patch back into one since the other patches are now
> unnecessary
>
> v6:
> - move fault address and fault code into the kernel_siginfo data structure
> - split the patch in three since it was getting large and now has
> generic and arch-specific parts
>
> v5:
> - add padding to fault_addr_top_byte_context in order to ensure the correct
> size and preserve sp alignment
>
> v4:
> - expose only the tag bits in the context instead of the entire FAR_EL1
> - remove mention of the new context from the sigcontext.__reserved[] note
>
> v3:
> - add documentation to tagged-pointers.rst
> - update comments in sigcontext.h
>
> v2:
> - revert changes to hw_breakpoint.c
> - rename set_thread_esr to set_thread_far_esr
>
> Documentation/arm64/tagged-pointers.rst | 21 +++++---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/exception.h | 2 +-
> arch/arm64/include/asm/signal.h | 19 +++++++
> arch/arm64/include/asm/system_misc.h | 2 +-
> arch/arm64/include/asm/traps.h | 6 +--
> arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c | 5 +-
> arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c | 2 -
> arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c | 7 +--
> arch/arm64/kernel/sys_compat.c | 5 +-
> arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c | 29 ++++++-----
> arch/arm64/mm/fault.c | 68 ++++++++++++++-----------
> arch/x86/kernel/signal_compat.c | 9 +++-
> include/linux/compat.h | 2 +
> include/linux/signal.h | 16 ++++++
> include/uapi/asm-generic/siginfo.h | 10 ++++
> kernel/signal.c | 18 ++++++-
> 16 files changed, 148 insertions(+), 73 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 arch/arm64/include/asm/signal.h
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/arm64/tagged-pointers.rst b/Documentation/arm64/tagged-pointers.rst
> index eab4323609b9..032c09a876f4 100644
> --- a/Documentation/arm64/tagged-pointers.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/arm64/tagged-pointers.rst
> @@ -53,12 +53,21 @@ visibility.
> Preserving tags
> ---------------
>
> -Non-zero tags are not preserved when delivering signals. This means that
> -signal handlers in applications making use of tags cannot rely on the
> -tag information for user virtual addresses being maintained for fields
> -inside siginfo_t. One exception to this rule is for signals raised in
> -response to watchpoint debug exceptions, where the tag information will
> -be preserved.
> +Non-zero tags are not preserved in the fault address fields
> +siginfo.si_addr or sigcontext.fault_address when delivering
> +signals. This means that signal handlers in applications making use
> +of tags cannot rely on the tag information for user virtual addresses
> +being maintained in these fields. One exception to this rule is for
> +signals raised in response to watchpoint debug exceptions, where the
> +tag information will be preserved.
> +
> +The fault address tag is preserved in the si_addr_tag_bits field
> +of siginfo, which is set for signals raised in response to data aborts
> +and instruction aborts. The si_addr_tag_bits_mask field indicates
> +which bits of the field are valid. The validity of these fields is
> +indicated by the SIXFLAG_ADDR_TAG_BITS flag in siginfo.si_xflags,
> +and the validity of si_xflags in turn is indicated by the kernel
> +indicating support for the sigaction.sa_flags flag SA_XFLAGS.
>
> The architecture prevents the use of a tagged PC, so the upper byte will
> be set to a sign-extension of bit 55 on exception return.
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/exception.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/exception.h
> index 99b9383cd036..2a8aa1884d8a 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/exception.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/exception.h
> @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ static inline u32 disr_to_esr(u64 disr)
> }
>
> asmlinkage void enter_from_user_mode(void);
> -void do_mem_abort(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr, struct pt_regs *regs);
> +void do_mem_abort(unsigned long far, unsigned int esr, struct pt_regs *regs);
> void do_undefinstr(struct pt_regs *regs);
> void do_bti(struct pt_regs *regs);
> asmlinkage void bad_mode(struct pt_regs *regs, int reason, unsigned int esr);
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/signal.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/signal.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..46f9b3c61896
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/signal.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> +#ifndef __ARM64_ASM_SIGNAL_H
> +#define __ARM64_ASM_SIGNAL_H
> +
> +#include <uapi/asm/signal.h>
> +#include <uapi/asm/siginfo.h>
> +
> +static inline unsigned long arch_addr_tag_bits_mask(unsigned long sig,
> + unsigned long si_code)
> +{
> + if (sig == SIGTRAP && si_code == TRAP_BRKPT)
> + return 0;
> + if (sig == SIGSEGV && si_code == SEGV_MTESERR)
> + return 0xfUL << 56;
Should this be 0xffUL << 56?
I thought MTE ignored bits 63:60, rather than requiring them to be 0?
The whole tag byte may be relevant for debugging purposes, even if only
some of the bits are checked in hardware.
For consistency, I wonder whether it makes sense to expose the bits as
tag bits for watchpoint execeptions, even if they are left un-cleared in
si_addr for historical reasons.
> + return 0xffUL << 56;
> +}
> +#define arch_addr_tag_bits_mask arch_addr_tag_bits_mask
[...]
Cheers
---Dave
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-02 17:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-17 0:12 [PATCH v12 0/8] arm64: expose FAR_EL1 tag bits in siginfo Peter Collingbourne
2020-10-17 0:12 ` [PATCH v12 1/8] parisc: Drop parisc special case for __sighandler_t Peter Collingbourne
2020-10-17 0:12 ` [PATCH v12 2/8] parisc: start using signal-defs.h Peter Collingbourne
2020-10-17 0:12 ` [PATCH v12 3/8] arch: move SA_* definitions to generic headers Peter Collingbourne
2020-11-02 17:23 ` Dave Martin
2020-10-17 0:12 ` [PATCH v12 4/8] signal: clear non-uapi flag bits when passing/returning sa_flags Peter Collingbourne
2020-11-02 17:26 ` Dave Martin
2020-10-17 0:12 ` [PATCH v12 5/8] signal: define the SA_UNSUPPORTED bit in sa_flags Peter Collingbourne
2020-10-17 0:12 ` [PATCH v12 6/8] signal: deduplicate code dealing with common _sigfault fields Peter Collingbourne
2020-10-17 0:12 ` [PATCH v12 7/8] signal: define the field siginfo.si_xflags Peter Collingbourne
2020-11-02 17:37 ` Dave Martin
2020-11-03 4:10 ` Peter Collingbourne
2020-11-03 11:44 ` Dave Martin
2020-10-17 0:12 ` [PATCH v12 8/8] arm64: expose FAR_EL1 tag bits in siginfo Peter Collingbourne
2020-11-02 17:54 ` Dave Martin [this message]
2020-11-03 3:59 ` Peter Collingbourne
2020-11-03 11:49 ` Dave Martin
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=20201102175451.GF6882@arm.com \
--to=dave.martin@arm.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=andreyknvl@google.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=david.spickett@linaro.org \
--cc=deller@gmx.de \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=eugenis@google.com \
--cc=kcc@google.com \
--cc=kevin.brodsky@arm.com \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=pcc@google.com \
--cc=rth@twiddle.net \
--cc=vincenzo.frascino@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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).