Re: [PATCH 0/7] test_user_copy improvements

[James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2461 bytes --]

Hi Kees,

On 05/08/15 21:26, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 8:48 AM, James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com> wrote:
>> These patches extend the test_user_copy test module to handle lots more
>> cases of user accessors which architectures can override separately, and
>> in particular those which are important for checking the MIPS Enhanced
>> Virtual Addressing (EVA) implementations, which need to handle
>> overlapping user and kernel address spaces, with special instructions
>> for accessing user address space from kernel mode.
>>
>> - Checking that kernel pointers are accepted when user address limit is
>>   set to KERNEL_DS, as done by the kernel when it internally invokes
>>   system calls with kernel pointers.
>> - Checking of the unchecked accessors (which don't call access_ok()).
>>   Some of the tests are special cased for EVA at the moment which has
>>   stricter hardware guarantees for bad user accesses than other
>>   configurations.
>> - Checking of other sets of user accessors, including the inatomic user
>>   copies, copy_in_user, clear_user, the user string accessors, and the
>>   user checksum functions, all of which need special handling in arch
>>   code with EVA.
>>
>> Tested on MIPS with and without EVA, and on x86_64.
>>
>> James Hogan (7):
>>   test_user_copy: Check legit kernel accesses
>>   test_user_copy: Check unchecked accessors
>>   test_user_copy: Check __clear_user()/clear_user()
>>   test_user_copy: Check __copy_in_user()/copy_in_user()
>>   test_user_copy: Check __copy_{to,from}_user_inatomic()
>>   test_user_copy: Check user string accessors
>>   test_user_copy: Check user checksum functions
>>
>>  lib/test_user_copy.c | 221 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 221 insertions(+)
>>
>> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> 
> Ooooh! Nice! This is great, thank you. :) Great to hear it helped find
> a bug too. :)
> 
> I'm wondering if we need to macro-ize any of these. Probably not, but
> it just feels like there's a lot of repeated stuff now. But I think
> it's a bit of an illusion since each test is ever so slightly
> different from the others.

Yeh, I wondered that too, but I agree they're all slightly different in
their requirements so it'd just end up confusing things.

> 
> Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>

Thanks!

James


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]