From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Sender: Ingo Molnar Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 09:00:12 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar Message-ID: <20170512070012.7dysuhbkcas7ibaj@gmail.com> References: <20170428153213.137279-1-thgarnie@google.com> <20170508073352.caqe3fqf7nuxypgi@gmail.com> <20170508124621.GA20705@kroah.com> <20170509064522.anusoikaalvlux3w@gmail.com> <20170509085659.GA32555@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v9 1/4] syscalls: Verify address limit before returning to user-mode List-Archive: List-Post: To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Greg KH , Thomas Garnier , Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens , Dave Hansen , Arnd Bergmann , Thomas Gleixner , David Howells , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9?= Nyffenegger , Andrew Morton , "Paul E . McKenney" , "Eric W . Biederman" , Oleg Nesterov , Pavel Tikhomirov , Ingo Molnar , "H . Peter Anvin" , Paolo Bonzini , Rik van Riel , Kees Cook , Josh Poimboeuf , Borislav Petkov , Brian Gerst , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , Christian Borntraeger , Russell King , Will Deacon , Catalin Marinas , Mark Rutland , James Morse , linux-s390 , LKML , Linux API , the arch/x86 maintainers , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Kernel Hardening , Linus Torvalds , Peter Zijlstra List-ID: * Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 1:56 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 08:45:22AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> We only have ~115 code blocks in the kernel that set/restore KERNEL_DS, it would > >> be a pity to add a runtime check to every system call ... > > > > I think we should simply strive to remove all of them that aren't > > in core scheduler / arch code. Basically evetyytime we do the > > > > oldfs = get_fs(); > > set_fs(KERNEL_DS); > > .. > > set_fs(oldfs); > > > > trick we're doing something wrong, and there should always be better > > ways to archive it. E.g. using iov_iter with a ITER_KVEC type > > consistently would already remove most of them. > > How about trying to remove all of them? If we could actually get rid > of all of them, we could drop the arch support, and we'd get faster, > simpler, shorter uaccess code throughout the kernel. I'm all for that! Thanks, Ingo