On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 05:40:19PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 05:46:17PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 05:23:17PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 05:47:05PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:26:03PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > > > +- *Asynchronous* - The kernel raises a ``SIGSEGV``, in the current > > > > > + thread, asynchronously following one or multiple tag check faults, > > > > > + with ``.si_code = SEGV_MTEAERR`` and ``.si_addr = 0``. > > > > > > > > For "current thread": that's a kernel concept. For user-facing > > > > documentation, can we say "the offending thread" or similar? > > > > > > > > For clarity, it's worth saying that the faulting address is not > > > > reported. Or, we could be optimistic that someday this information will > > > > be available and say that si_addr is the faulting address if available, > > > > with 0 meaning the address is not available. > > > > > > > > Maybe (void *)-1 would be better duff address, but I can't see it > > > > mattering much. If there's already precedent for si_addr==0 elsewhere, > > > > it makes sense to follow it. > > > > > > At a quick grep, I can see a few instances on other architectures where > > > si_addr==0. I'll add a comment here. > > > > OK, cool > > > > Except: what if we're in PR_MTE_TCF_ASYNC mode. If the SIGSEGV handler > > triggers an asynchronous MTE fault itself, we could then get into a > > spin. Hmm. > > How do we handle standard segfaults here? Presumably a signal handler > can trigger a SIGSEGV itself. This is similar to the problem is a data abort inside the data abort handler. It can of course happen, but if you don't want this to be fatal then you code the handler carefully so this can't happen. > > I take it we drain any pending MTE faults when crossing EL boundaries? > > We clear the hardware bit on entry to EL1 from EL0 and set a TIF flag. > > > In that case, an asynchronous MTE fault pending at sigreturn must have > > been caused by the signal handler. We could make that particular case > > of MTE_AERR a force_sig. > > We clear the TIF flag when delivering the signal. I don't think there is > a way for the kernel to detect when it is running in a signal handler. > sigreturn() is not mandatory either. I guess we can put up with this signal not being fatal then. If you have a SEGV handler at all, you're supposed to code it carefully. This brings us back to force_sig for SERR and a normal signal for AERR. That's probably OK. > > > > > > +**Note**: Kernel accesses to user memory (e.g. ``read()`` system call) > > > > > +are only checked if the current thread tag checking mode is > > > > > +PR_MTE_TCF_SYNC. > > > > > > > > Vague? Can we make a precise statement about when the kernel will and > > > > won't check such accesses? And aren't there limitations (like use of > > > > get_user_pages() etc.)? > > > > > > We could make it slightly clearer by say "kernel accesses to the user > > > address space". > > > > That's not the ambiguity. > > > > My question is > > > > 1) Does the kernel guarantee not to check tags on kernel accesses to > > user memory without PR_MTE_TCF_SYNC? > > For ASYNC and NONE, yes, we can guarantee this. > > > 2) Does the kernel guarantee to check tags on kernel accesses to user > > memory with PR_MTE_TCF_SYNC? > > I'd say yes but it depends on how much knowledge one has about the > syscall implementation. If it's access to user address directly, it > would be checked. If it goes via get_user_pages(), it won't. Since the > user doesn't need to have knowledge of the kernel internals, you are > right that we don't guarantee this. So, from userspace it's not guaranteed. This is what I'd describe as "making best efforts", but not a guarantee. > > In practice, this note sounds to be more like a kernel implementation > > detail rather than advice to userspace. > > > > Would it make sense to say something like: > > > > * PR_MTE_TCF_NONE: the kernel does not check tags for kernel accesses > > to use memory done by syscalls in the thread. > > > > * PR_MTE_TCF_ASYNC: the kernel may check some tags for kernel accesses > > to user memory done by syscalls. (Should we guarantee that such > > faults are reported synchronously on syscall exit? In practice I > > think they are. Should we use SEGV_MTESERR in this case? Perhaps > > it's not worth making this a special case.) > > Both NONE and ASYNC are now the same for kernel uaccess - not checked. > > For background information, I decided against ASYNC uaccess checking > since (1) there are some cases where the kernel overreads > (strncpy_from_user) and (2) we don't normally generate SIGSEGV on > uaccess but rather return -EFAULT. The latter is not possible to contain > since we only learn about the fault asynchronously, usually after the > transfer. I may be missing something here. Do we still rely on the hardware to detect tag mismatches in kernel accesses to user memory? I was assuming we do some kind of explicit checking, but now I think that's nonsense (except for get_user_pages() etc.) Since MTE is a new opt-in feature, I think we might have the option to report failures with SIGSEGV instead of -EFAULT. This seems exactly to implement the concept of an asynchronous versus synchronous error. The kernel may not normally do this, but software usually doesn't use raw syscalls. In reality "syscalls" can trigger a SIGSEGV in the libc wrapper anyway. From the caller's point of view the whole thing is a black box. Probably needs discussion with the bionic / glibc folks though (though likely this has been discussed already...) My concern is that the spirit of asynchrous checking in the architecture is that accesses _are_ checked, and we seem to be breaking that principle here. Although MTE's guarantees are statistical, based on small random numbers not matching, this imperfection is quite different from systematically not checking at all, ever, on certain major code paths. > > > * PR_MTE_TCF_SYNC: the kernel makes best efforts to check tags for > > kernel accesses to user memory done by the syscalls, but does not > > guarantee to check everything (or does it? I thought we can't really > > do that for some odd cases...) > > It doesn't. I'll add some notes along the lines of your text above. OK > > > > > +excludes all tags other than 0. A user thread can enable specific tags > > > > > +in the randomly generated set using the ``prctl(PR_SET_TAGGED_ADDR_CTRL, > > > > > +flags, 0, 0, 0)`` system call where ``flags`` contains the tags bitmap > > > > > +in the ``PR_MTE_TAG_MASK`` bit-field. > > > > > + > > > > > +**Note**: The hardware uses an exclude mask but the ``prctl()`` > > > > > +interface provides an include mask. An include mask of ``0`` (exclusion > > > > > +mask ``0xffff``) results in the CPU always generating tag ``0``. > > > > > > > > Is there no way to make this default to 1 rather than having a magic > > > > meaning for 0? > > > > > > We follow the hardware behaviour where 0xffff and 0xfffe give the same > > > result. > > > > Exposing this through a purely software interface seems a bit odd: > > because the exclude mask is privileged-access-only, the architecture > > could amend it to assign a different meaning to 0xffff, providing this > > was an opt-in change. Then we'd have to make a mess here. > > You have a point. An include mask of 0 translates to an exclude mask of > 0xffff as per the current patches. If the hardware gains support for one > more bit (32 colours), old software running on new hardware may run into > unexpected results with an exclude mask of 0xffff. > > > Can't we just forbid the nonsense value 0 here, or are there other > > reasons why that's problematic? > > It was just easier to start with a default. I wonder whether we should > actually switch back to the exclude mask, as per the hardware > definition. This way 0 would mean all tags allowed. We can still > disallow 0xffff as an exclude mask. If the number of bits might grow, I guess we can make the exclude mask full-width. For example, the hardware can trivially exclude tags 16 and up, because they don't exist anyway. Similarly, the hardware can trivially include tags 16 and up: inclusion only means that the hardware is allowed to generate them, not that it guarantees to. The only configuration that doesn't make sense is "no tags allowed", so I'd argue for explicity blocking that, even if the architeture alises that encoding to something else. If we prefer 0 as a default value so that init inherits the correct value from the kernel without any special acrobatics, then we make it an exclude mask, with the semantics that the hardware is allowed to generate any of these tags, but does not have to be capable of generating all of them. Make sense? This is bikeshedding from my end... Cheers ---Dave
