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=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,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 65504C282DD for ; Thu, 23 May 2019 10:43:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 302B920851 for ; Thu, 23 May 2019 10:43:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="Fq7+ruvm" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 302B920851 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=ruWlK2PL4mgaUcPTuFul5iVZMdwG+xjvQB9v42j08Xc=; b=Fq7+ruvmvGmDh8 HgDtj+Bf3aTq1x4lMDUnAj8I7CkWanAyAwcS3Fh/scjHR+S7Xive5fjnLej4SIhJQ2DQWShxVqF3S aOScBeCWL2Dz+/aC6giBL1O1zD85qwfH3cBeqW6jdYjDS5sHAlwMPag5UE7GtoFtHnMaNyK6PRZc2 j1R7oK9dfgPr+SH5j0CA1sQF5KVMvk+o4x0Sw9Ll64TSmBsbP6qXqZdpwW5aRjrBC66FqAGy+TSBa EIprKuHCP7KS/oyjMMfhAdz5Byeu+u9ZJslv2rLQTWGYcthpBGoBGslXUihLwkF2gJ/ZRsvvVRAb6 5rdnA0n+v8C1PGchmZpA==; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1hTlBl-00073r-6W; Thu, 23 May 2019 10:43:09 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1hTlBi-00073W-0X for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 23 May 2019 10:43:07 +0000 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 84A77341; Thu, 23 May 2019 03:43:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e103592.cambridge.arm.com (usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C9A023F718; Thu, 23 May 2019 03:42:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 11:42:57 +0100 From: Dave Martin To: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 00/17] arm64: untag user pointers passed to the kernel Message-ID: <20190523104256.GX28398@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20190517144931.GA56186@arrakis.emea.arm.com> <20190521184856.GC2922@ziepe.ca> <20190522134925.GV28398@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> <20190523002052.GF15389@ziepe.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190523002052.GF15389@ziepe.ca> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20190523_034306_069063_58A178A5 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 28.68 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Mark Rutland , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Szabolcs Nagy , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Vincenzo Frascino , Jacob Bramley , Leon Romanovsky , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Dmitry Vyukov , Ramana Radhakrishnan , Evgeniy Stepanov , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, Kees Cook , Ruben Ayrapetyan , Andrey Konovalov , Kevin Brodsky , Alex Williamson , Yishai Hadas , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Kostya Serebryany , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Felix Kuehling , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jens Wiklander , Lee Smith , Alexander Deucher , Andrew Morton , Robin Murphy , Christian Koenig , Luc Van Oostenryck Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 09:20:52PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > 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 Ultimately it would be good to disallow casting __object pointers execpt to compatible __object pointer types, and to make get_user etc. demand __object. __vaddr pointers / addresses would be freely castable, but not to __object and so would not be dereferenceable even indirectly. Or that's the general idea. Figuring out a sane set of rules that we could actually check / enforce would require a bit of work. (Whether the __vaddr base type is a pointer or an integer type is probably moot, due to the restrictions we would place on the use of these anyway.) > > 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. Agreed. Cheers ---Dave _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel