From: Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Gatlin Newhouse <gatlin.newhouse@gmail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@gmail.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
Bill Wendling <morbo@google.com>,
Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>, Changbin Du <changbin.du@huawei.com>,
Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@intel.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>, Xin Li <xin3.li@intel.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>, Tina Zhang <tina.zhang@intel.com>,
Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com,
linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/traps: Enable UBSAN traps on x86
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 16:06:47 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202406171557.E6CA604FB@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <875xu7rzeg.ffs@tglx>
On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 12:13:27AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12 2024 at 11:42, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 01:26:09PM -0700, Gatlin Newhouse wrote:
> >> It seems that is_valid_bugaddr() needs to be implemented on all architectures
> >> and the function get_ud_type() replaces it here. So how should the patch handle
> >> is_valid_bugaddr()? Should the function remain as-is in traps.c despite no
> >> longer being used?
> >
> > Yeah, this is why I'd suggested to Gatlin in early designs to reuse
> > is_valid_bugaddr()'s int value. It's a required function, so it seemed
> > sensible to just repurpose it from yes/no to no/type1/type2/type3/etc.
>
> It's not sensible, it's just tasteless.
>
> If is_valid_bugaddr() is globaly required in it's boolean form then it
> should just stay that way and not be abused just because it can be
> abused.
>
> What's wrong with doing:
>
> __always_inline u16 get_ud_type(unsigned long addr)
> {
> ....
> }
>
> int is_valid_bugaddr(unsigned long addr)
> {
> return get_ud_type() != BUG_UD_NONE;
> }
>
> Hmm?
>
> In fact is_valid_bugaddr() should be globally fixed up to return bool to
> match what the function name suggests.
>
> The UD type information is x86 specific and has zero business in a
> generic architecture agnostic function return value.
>
> It's a sad state of affairs that I have to explain this to people who
> care about code correctness. Readability and consistency are substantial
> parts of correctness, really.
Well, it's trade-offs. If get_ud_type() is in is_valid_bugaddr(), we
have to call it _again_ outside of is_valid_bugaddr(). That's suboptimal
as well. I was trying to find a reasonable way to avoid refactoring all
architectures and to avoid code code.
Looking at it all again, I actually think arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
shouldn't call is_valid_bugaddr() at all. That usage can continue to
stay in lib/bug.c, which is only ever used by x86 during very early
boot, according to the comments in early_fixup_exception(). So just a
direct replacement of is_valid_bugaddr() with the proposed get_ud_type()
should be fine in arch/x86/kernel/traps.c.
What do you think?
--
Kees Cook
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-06-17 23:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-06-01 3:10 [PATCH v2] x86/traps: Enable UBSAN traps on x86 Gatlin Newhouse
2024-06-01 14:06 ` Kees Cook
2024-06-03 16:13 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-06-11 20:26 ` Gatlin Newhouse
2024-06-12 18:42 ` Kees Cook
2024-06-17 22:13 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-06-17 23:06 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2024-06-17 23:57 ` Thomas Gleixner
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=202406171557.E6CA604FB@keescook \
--to=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andreyknvl@gmail.com \
--cc=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=changbin.du@huawei.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=gatlin.newhouse@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
--cc=justinstitt@google.com \
--cc=kasan-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=morbo@google.com \
--cc=nathan@kernel.org \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--cc=pengfei.xu@intel.com \
--cc=rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com \
--cc=ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tina.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=ubizjak@gmail.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=xin3.li@intel.com \
/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