On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 7:49 AM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Andrey, > > On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 06:30:46PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote: > > One of the alternative approaches to untagging that was considered is to > > completely strip the pointer tag as the pointer enters the kernel with > > some kind of a syscall wrapper, but that won't work with the countless > > number of different ioctl calls. With this approach we would need a custom > > wrapper for each ioctl variation, which doesn't seem practical. > > The more I look at this problem, the less convinced I am that we can > solve it in a way that results in a stable ABI covering ioctls(). While > for the Android kernel codebase it could be simpler as you don't upgrade > the kernel version every 2.5 months, for the mainline kernel this > doesn't scale. Any run-time checks are relatively limited in terms of > drivers covered. Better static checking would be nice as a long term > solution but we didn't get anywhere with the discussion last year. > > IMO (RFC for now), I see two ways forward: > > 1. Make this a user space problem and do not allow tagged pointers into > the syscall ABI. A libc wrapper would have to convert structures, > parameters before passing them into the kernel. Note that we can > still support the hardware MTE in the kernel by enabling tagged > memory ranges, saving/restoring tags etc. but not allowing tagged > addresses at the syscall boundary. > > 2. Similar shim to the above libc wrapper but inside the kernel > (arch/arm64 only; most pointer arguments could be covered with an > __SC_CAST similar to the s390 one). There are two differences from > what we've discussed in the past: > > a) this is an opt-in by the user which would have to explicitly call > prctl(). If it returns -ENOTSUPP etc., the user won't be allowed > to pass tagged pointers to the kernel. This would probably be the > responsibility of the C lib to make sure it doesn't tag heap > allocations. If the user did not opt-in, the syscalls are routed > through the normal path (no untagging address shim). > > b) ioctl() and other blacklisted syscalls (prctl) will not accept > tagged pointers (to be documented in Vicenzo's ABI patches). > > It doesn't solve the problems we are trying to address but 2.a saves us > from blindly relaxing the ABI without knowing how to easily assess new > code being merged (over 500K lines between kernel versions). Existing > applications (who don't opt-in) won't inadvertently start using the new > ABI which could risk becoming de-facto ABI that we need to support on > the long run. > > Option 1 wouldn't solve the ioctl() problem either and while it makes > things simpler for the kernel, I am aware that it's slightly more > complicated in user space (but I really don't mind if you prefer option > 1 ;)). > > The tagged pointers (whether hwasan or MTE) should ideally be a > transparent feature for the application writer but I don't think we can > solve it entirely and make it seamless for the multitude of ioctls(). > I'd say you only opt in to such feature if you know what you are doing > and the user code takes care of specific cases like ioctl(), hence the > prctl() proposal even for the hwasan. > > Comments welcomed. Any userspace shim approach is problematic for Android because of the apps that use raw system calls. AFAIK, all apps written in Go are in that camp - I'm not sure how common they are, but getting them all recompiled is probably not realistic. The way I see it, a patch that breaks handling of tagged pointers is not that different from, say, a patch that adds a wild pointer dereference. Both are bugs; the difference is that (a) the former breaks a relatively uncommon target and (b) it's arguably an easier mistake to make. If MTE adoption goes well, (a) will not be the case for long. This is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem. In a world where memory allocators on one or several popular platforms generate pointers with non-zero tags, any such breakage will be caught in testing. Unfortunately to reach that state we need the kernel to start accepting tagged pointers first, and then hold on for a couple of years until userspace catches up. Perhaps we can start by whitelisting ioctls by driver? _______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
