On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers
<mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ----- On Aug 10, 2016, at 3:16 PM, Andy Lutomirski luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers
>> <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> ----- On Aug 10, 2016, at 4:10 AM, Andy Lutomirski luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers
>>>> <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> Actually, we want copy_from_user() there. This executes upon
>>>>> resume to user-space, so we can take a page fault is needed, so
>>>>> no "inatomic" needed. I therefore suggest:
>>>>
>>>> Running the code below via exit_to_usermode_loop...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> static bool rseq_get_rseq_cs(struct task_struct *t,
>>>>> void __user **start_ip,
>>>>> void __user **post_commit_ip,
>>>>> void __user **abort_ip)
>>>>> {
>>>>> unsigned long ptr;
>>>>> struct rseq_cs __user *urseq_cs;
>>>>> struct rseq_cs rseq_cs;
>>>>>
>>>>> if (__get_user(ptr, &t->rseq->rseq_cs))
>>>>> return false;
>>>>> if (!ptr)
>>>>> return true;
>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
>>>>> if (in_compat_syscall()) {
>>>>> urseq_cs = compat_ptr((compat_uptr_t)ptr);
>>>>> if (copy_from_user(&rseq_cs, urseq_cs, sizeof(*rseq_cs)))
>>>>> return false;
>>>>> *start_ip = compat_ptr((compat_uptr_t)rseq_cs.start_ip);
>>>>> *post_commit_ip = compat_ptr((compat_uptr_t)rseq_cs.post_commit_ip);
>>>>> *abort_ip = compat_ptr((compat_uptr_t)rseq_cs.abort_ip);
>>>>> return true;
>>>>> }
>>>>> #endif
>>>>
>>>> ...means that in_compat_syscall() is nonsense. (It *works* there, but
>>>> I can't imagine that it does anything that is actually sensible for
>>>> this use.)
>>>
>>> Agreed that we are not per-se in a system call here. It works for
>>> in_ia32_syscall(), but it may not work for in_x32_syscall().
>>>
>>> Then should we test for this ?
>>>
>>> if (!is_64bit_mm(current->mm))
>>>
>>> This is currently x86-specific. Is this how we are expected to test
>>> the user-space pointer size in the current mm in arch-agnostic code ?
>>> If so, we should implement is_64bit_mm() on all other architectures.
>>
>> There is no universal concept of the user-space pointer size on x86
>> because x86 code can change it via long jumps.
>>
>> What are you actually trying to do? I would guess that
>> user_64bit_mode(regs) is the right thing here, because the rseq data
>> structure is describing the currently executing code.
>
> Yes, that's correct, we care about the pointer size of currently executing
> code. On x86 user_64bit_mode(regs) would appear to be the right thing to do.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can't you just define the ABI so that no compat junk is needed?
>>>> (Also, CRIU will thank you for doing that.)
>>>
>>> We are dealing with user-space pointers here, so AFAIU we need to
>>> be aware of their size, which involves compat code. Am I missing
>>> something ?
>>
>> u64 is a perfectly valid, if odd, userspace pointer on all
>> architecures that I know of, and it's certainly a valid userspace
>> pointer on x86 32-bit userspace (the high bits will just all be zero).
>> Can you just use u64?
>
> My concern is about a 32-bit user-space putting garbage rather than zeroes
> (on purpose) to fool the kernel on those upper 32 bits. Doing
>
> compat_ptr((compat_uptr_t)rseq_cs.start_ip)
>
> effectively ends up clearing the upper 32 bits.
>
> But since we only use those pointer values for comparisons, perhaps we
> just don't care if a 32-bit userspace app try to shoot itself in
> the foot by passing garbage upper 32 bits ?
>
How is garbage in the high bits any different than garbage in any
other bits in there?
>
>> If this would be a performance problem on ARM, then maybe that's a
>> reason to use compat helpers.
>
> We already use 64-bit values for the pointers, even on 32-bit. Normally
> userspace just puts zeroes in the top bits. It's mostly a question of
> clearing the top 32 bits or not when loading them in the kernel. If we
> don't need to, then I can remove the compat code entirely, and we don't
> care about user_64bit_mode() anymore, as you initially recommended.
> Does it make sense ?
Yes, I think so. I'd suggest just honoring all the bits.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> +SYSCALL_DEFINE2(rseq, struct rseq __user *, rseq, int, flags)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> + if (unlikely(flags))
>>>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (add whitespace)
>>>>>
>>>>> fixed.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> + if (!rseq) {
>>>>>>> + if (!current->rseq)
>>>>>>> + return -ENOENT;
>>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>
>>>> This looks entirely wrong. Setting rseq to NULL fails if it's already
>>>> NULL but silently does nothing if rseq is already set? Surely it
>>>> should always succeed and it should actually do something if rseq is
>>>> set.
>>>
>>> From the proposed rseq(2) manpage:
>>>
>>> "A NULL rseq value can be used to check whether rseq is registered
>>> for the current thread."
>>>
>>> The implementation does just that: it returns -1, errno=ENOENT if no
>>> rseq is currently registered, or 0 if rseq is currently registered.
>>
>> I think that's problematic. Why can't you unregister an existing
>> rseq? If you can't, how is a thread supposed to clean up after
>> itself?
>>
>
> Unregistering an existing thread rseq would require that we keep reference
> counting, in case multiple libs and/or the app are using rseq. I am
> trying to keep things as simple as needed.
>
> If I understand your concern, the problematic scenario would be at
> thread exit (this is my current approximate understanding of glibc
> handling of library TLS variable reclaim at thread exit):
>
> thread exits in userspace:
> - glibc frees its rseq TLS memory area (in case the TLS is in a library),
> - thread preempted before really exiting,
> - kernel reads/writes to freed TLS memory.
> - corruption may occur (e.g. memory re-allocated by another thread already)
>
> Am I getting it right ?
Yes.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
