On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 12:16:03PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> [adding mm folk]
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 06:20:15PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 04:10:29PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 07:44:33PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> > > > +#define arch_validate_prot(prot, addr) arm64_validate_prot(prot, addr)
> > > > +static inline int arm64_validate_prot(unsigned long prot, unsigned long addr)
> > > > +{
> > > > + unsigned long supported = PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC | PROT_SEM;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (system_supports_bti())
> > > > + supported |= PROT_BTI;
> > > > +
> > > > + return (prot & ~supported) == 0;
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > If we have this check, can we ever get into arm64_calc_vm_prot_bits()
> > > with PROT_BIT but !system_supports_bti()?
> > >
> > > ... or can that become:
> > >
> > > return (prot & PROT_BTI) ? VM_ARM64_BTI : 0;
> >
> > We can reach this via mmap() and friends IIUC.
> >
> > Since this function only gets called once-ish per vma I have a weak
> > preference for keeping the check here to avoid code fragility.
> >
> >
> > It does feel like arch_validate_prot() is supposed to be a generic gate
> > for prot flags coming into the kernel via any route though, but only the
> > mprotect() path actually uses it.
> >
> > This function originally landed in v2.6.27 as part of the powerpc strong
> > access ordering support (PROT_SAO):
> >
> > b845f313d78e ("mm: Allow architectures to define additional protection bits")
> > ef3d3246a0d0 ("powerpc/mm: Add Strong Access Ordering support")
> >
> > where the mmap() path uses arch_calc_vm_prot_bits() without
> > arch_validate_prot(), just as in the current code. powerpc's original
> > arch_calc_vm_prot_bits() does no obvious policing.
> >
> > This might be a bug. I can draft a patch to add it for the mmap() path
> > for people to comment on ... I can't figure out yet whether or not the
> > difference is intentional or there's some subtlety that I'm missed.
>
> From reading those two commit messages, it looks like this was an
> oversight. I'd expect that we should apply this check for any
> user-provided prot (i.e. it should apply to both mprotect and mmap).
>
> Ben, Andrew, does that make sense to you?
>
> ... or was there some reason to only do this for mprotect?
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
For now, I'll drop a comment under the tearoff noting this outstanding
question.
The resulting behaviour is slightly odd, but doesn't seem unsafe, and
we can of course tidy it up later. I think the risk of userspace
becoming dependent on randomly passing PROT_BTI to mprotect() even
when unsupported is low.
[...]
Cheers
---Dave
