* RE: [PATCH -next] uaccess: fix __access_ok limit setup in compat mode
2022-03-22 14:41 ` [PATCH -next] uaccess: fix __access_ok limit setup in compat mode Arnd Bergmann
@ 2022-03-23 1:35 ` David Laight
2022-03-23 10:34 ` chenjiahao (C)
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: David Laight @ 2022-03-23 1:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'Arnd Bergmann', chenjiahao (C)
Cc: Eric W . Biederman, Sam Ravnborg, Stafford Horne, Dinh Nguyen,
linux-arch, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux API,
Linux FS-devel Mailing List, the arch/x86 maintainers
From: Arnd Bergmann
> Sent: 22 March 2022 14:41
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 1:55 PM chenjiahao (C) <chenjiahao16@huawei.com> wrote:
> > 在 2022/3/18 15:44, Arnd Bergmann 写道:
> > >
> > > This should not result in any user visible difference, in both cases
> > > user process will see a -EFAULT return code from its system call.
> > > Are you able to come up with a test case that shows an observable
> > > difference in behavior?
> >
> > Actually, this patch do comes from a testcase failure, the code is
> > pasted below:
>
> Thank you for the test case!
>
...
> > ret = pread64(fd, buf, -1, 1);
> > if((-1 == ret) && (EFAULT == errno))
> > {
...
> > printf("PASS\n");
...
> > In my explanation, pread64 is called with count '0xffffffffull' and
> > offset '1', which might still not trigger
> >
> > page fault in 64-bit kernel.
> >
> >
> > This patch uses TASK_SIZE as the addr_limit to performance a stricter
> > address check and intercepts
>
> I see. So while the kernel behavior was not meant to change from
> my patch, it clearly did, which may cause problems. However, I'm
> not sure if the changed behavior is actually wrong.
It isn't really any different from passing a length of (1 << 30)
(and a buffer at a low user address).
The entire buffer is valid user addresses, but most of it is
invalid because there is nothing mapped at the relevant addresses.
Unless you actually try to access one of the memory locations
you won't get a fault - and the correct return is then a partial read.
Similarly it is valid for the kernel to ensure there is an
unmapped page between user and kernel addresses and then
not check the buffer size at all - requiring the kernel code
do (adequately) sequential accesses.
Again your test 'fails'.
You could equally well argue that the 'old' behaviour is wrong!
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH -next] uaccess: fix __access_ok limit setup in compat mode
2022-03-22 14:41 ` [PATCH -next] uaccess: fix __access_ok limit setup in compat mode Arnd Bergmann
2022-03-23 1:35 ` David Laight
@ 2022-03-23 10:34 ` chenjiahao (C)
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: chenjiahao (C) @ 2022-03-23 10:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arnd Bergmann
Cc: Eric W . Biederman, Sam Ravnborg, Stafford Horne, Dinh Nguyen,
linux-arch, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux API,
Linux FS-devel Mailing List, the arch/x86 maintainers
在 2022/3/22 22:41, Arnd Bergmann 写道:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 1:55 PM chenjiahao (C) <chenjiahao16@huawei.com> wrote:
>> 在 2022/3/18 15:44, Arnd Bergmann 写道:
>>> This should not result in any user visible difference, in both cases
>>> user process will see a -EFAULT return code from its system call.
>>> Are you able to come up with a test case that shows an observable
>>> difference in behavior?
>> Actually, this patch do comes from a testcase failure, the code is
>> pasted below:
> Thank you for the test case!
>
>> #define TMPFILE "__1234567890"
>> #define BUF_SIZE 1024
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> char buf[BUF_SIZE] = {0};
>> int fd;
>> int ret;
>> int err;
>>
>> fd = open(TMPFILE, O_CREAT | O_RDWR);
>> if(-1 == fd)
>> {
>> perror("open");
>> return 1;
>> }
>>
>> ret = pread64(fd, buf, -1, 1);
>> if((-1 == ret) && (EFAULT == errno))
>> {
>> close(fd);
>> unlink(TMPFILE);
>> printf("PASS\n");
>> return 0;
>> }
>> err = errno;
>> perror("pread64");
>> printf("err = %d\n", err);
>> close(fd);
>> unlink(TMPFILE);
>> printf("FAIL\n");
>>
>> return 1;
>> }
>>
>> The expected result is:
>>
>> PASS
>>
>> but the result of 32-bit testcase running in x86-64 kernel with compat
>> mode is:
>>
>> pread64: Success
>> err = 0
>> FAIL
>>
>>
>> In my explanation, pread64 is called with count '0xffffffffull' and
>> offset '1', which might still not trigger
>>
>> page fault in 64-bit kernel.
>>
>>
>> This patch uses TASK_SIZE as the addr_limit to performance a stricter
>> address check and intercepts
> I see. So while the kernel behavior was not meant to change from
> my patch, it clearly did, which may cause problems. However, I'm
> not sure if the changed behavior is actually wrong.
>
>> the illegal pointer address from 32-bit userspace at a very early time.
>> Which is roughly the same
>>
>> address limit check as __access_ok in arch/ia64.
>>
>>
>> This is why this fixes my testcase failure above, or have I missed
>> anything else?
> My interpretation of what is going on here is that the pread64() call
> still behaves according to the documented behavior, returning a small
> number of bytes from the file, up to the first faulting address.
>
> As the manual page for pread64() describes,
>
> On success, pread() returns the number of bytes read
> (a return of zero indicates end of file) and pwrite() returns
> the number of bytes written.
> Note that it is not an error for a successful call to transfer
> fewer bytes than requested (see read(2)
> and write(2)).
I have really missed this point. The behavior here is and should
be aligned with the manual definition.
>
> The difference after my patch is that originally it returned
> -EFAULT because part of the buffer is outside of the
> addressable memory, but now it returns success because
> part of the buffer is inside the addressable memory ;-)
>
> I'm also not sure about which patch caused the change in
> behavior, can you double-check that? The one you cited,
> 967747bbc084 ("uaccess: remove CONFIG_SET_FS"), does
> not actually touch the x86 implementation, and commit
> 36903abedfe8 ("x86: remove __range_not_ok()") does touch
> x86 but the limit was already TASK_SIZE_MAX since commit
> 47058bb54b57 ("x86: remove address space overrides using
> set_fs()") back in linux-5.10.
I have performed the testcase on the same environment with
several old LTS kernel versions, all the results are "fault".
The behavior before and after your patches should be consistent.
So the fault should due to the disagreement between the
testcase's intention and the real pread64 definition. I have been
misled by the former one. Thanks for your interpretation.
Jiahao
>
> Arnd
>
> .
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread