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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no 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 2D42EC43331 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 17:52:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (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 DCE3E2077D for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 17:52:47 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org DCE3E2077D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=zeniv.linux.org.uk Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48tVyk1sbbzDrSJ for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 04:52:46 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=none (no SPF record) smtp.mailfrom=ftp.linux.org.uk (client-ip=2002:c35c:fd02::1; helo=zeniv.linux.org.uk; envelope-from=viro@ftp.linux.org.uk; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=zeniv.linux.org.uk Received: from ZenIV.linux.org.uk (zeniv.linux.org.uk [IPv6:2002:c35c:fd02::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48tVwc3XGVzDrPj for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 04:50:56 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from viro by ZenIV.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jK3z6-008rAv-W9; Thu, 02 Apr 2020 17:50:33 +0000 Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2020 18:50:32 +0100 From: Al Viro To: Christophe Leroy Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/4] uaccess: Add user_read_access_begin/end and user_write_access_begin/end Message-ID: <20200402175032.GH23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <27106d62fdbd4ffb47796236050e418131cb837f.1585811416.git.christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> <20200402162942.GG23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <67e21b65-0e2d-7ca5-7518-cec1b7abc46c@c-s.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <67e21b65-0e2d-7ca5-7518-cec1b7abc46c@c-s.fr> X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, keescook@chromium.org, Christian Borntraeger , airlied@linux.ie, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Russell King , linux-mm@kvack.org, Paul Mackerras , daniel@ffwll.ch, akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 07:03:28PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote: > user_access_begin() grants both read and write. > > This patch adds user_read_access_begin() and user_write_access_begin() but > it doesn't remove user_access_begin() Ouch... So the most generic name is for the rarest case? > > What should we do about that? Do we prohibit such blocks outside > > of arch? > > > > What should we do about arm and s390? There we want a cookie passed > > from beginning of block to its end; should that be a return value? > > That was the way I implemented it in January, see > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1227926/ > > There was some discussion around that and most noticeable was: > > H. Peter (hpa) said about it: "I have *deep* concern with carrying state in > a "key" variable: it's a direct attack vector for a crowbar attack, > especially since it is by definition live inside a user access region." > This patch minimises the change by just adding user_read_access_begin() and > user_write_access_begin() keeping the same parameters as the existing > user_access_begin(). Umm... What about the arm situation? The same concerns would apply there, wouldn't they? Currently we have static __always_inline unsigned int uaccess_save_and_enable(void) { #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_SW_DOMAIN_PAN unsigned int old_domain = get_domain(); /* Set the current domain access to permit user accesses */ set_domain((old_domain & ~domain_mask(DOMAIN_USER)) | domain_val(DOMAIN_USER, DOMAIN_CLIENT)); return old_domain; #else return 0; #endif } and static __always_inline void uaccess_restore(unsigned int flags) { #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_SW_DOMAIN_PAN /* Restore the user access mask */ set_domain(flags); #endif } How much do we need nesting on those, anyway? rmk?