On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 11:07 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 04:01:27PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 06:30:27PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
>> >> show_pte in arm64 fault handling relies on the fact that the top byte of
>> >> a kernel pointer is 0xff, which isn't always the case with tag-based
>> >> KASAN.
>> >
>> > That's for the TTBR1 check, right?
>> >
>> > i.e. for the following to work:
>> >
>> > if (addr >= VA_START)
>> >
>> > ... we need the tag bits to be an extension of bit 55...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> This patch resets the top byte in show_pte.
>> >>
>> >> Reviewed-by: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> ---
>> >> arch/arm64/mm/fault.c | 3 +++
>> >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
>> >> index 7d9571f4ae3d..d9a84d6f3343 100644
>> >> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
>> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
>> >> @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@
>> >> #include <linux/perf_event.h>
>> >> #include <linux/preempt.h>
>> >> #include <linux/hugetlb.h>
>> >> +#include <linux/kasan.h>
>> >>
>> >> #include <asm/bug.h>
>> >> #include <asm/cmpxchg.h>
>> >> @@ -141,6 +142,8 @@ void show_pte(unsigned long addr)
>> >> pgd_t *pgdp;
>> >> pgd_t pgd;
>> >>
>> >> + addr = (unsigned long)kasan_reset_tag((void *)addr);
>> >
>> > ... but this ORs in (0xffUL << 56), which is not correct for addresses
>> > which aren't TTBR1 addresses to begin with, where bit 55 is clear, and
>> > throws away useful information.
>> >
>> > We could use untagged_addr() here, but that wouldn't be right for
>> > kernels which don't use TBI1, and we'd erroneously report addresses
>> > under the TTBR1 range as being in the TTBR1 range.
>> >
>> > I also see that the entry assembly for el{1,0}_{da,ia} clears the tag
>> > for EL0 addresses.
>> >
>> > So we could have:
>> >
>> > static inline bool is_ttbr0_addr(unsigned long addr)
>> > {
>> > /* entry assembly clears tags for TTBR0 addrs */
>> > return addr < TASK_SIZE_64;
>> > }
>> >
>> > static inline bool is_ttbr1_addr(unsigned long addr)
>> > {
>> > /* TTBR1 addresses may have a tag if HWKASAN is in use */
>> > return arch_kasan_reset_tag(addr) >= VA_START;
>> > }
>> >
>> > ... and use those in the conditionals, leaving the addr as-is for
>> > reporting purposes.
>>
>> Actually it looks like 276e9327 ("arm64: entry: improve data abort
>> handling of tagged pointers") already takes care of both user and
>> kernel fault addresses and correctly removes tags from them. So I
>> think we need to drop this patch.
>
> The clear_address_tag macro added in that commit only removes tags from TTBR0
> addresses, so that's not sufficient if the kernel is used tagged addresses
> (which will be in the TTBR1 range).
Do I understand correctly that TTBR0 means user space addresses and
TTBR1 means kernel addresses? In that commit I see that the
clear_address_tag() macro is used in el0_da and in el1_da, which means
that it untags both user and kernel addresses (on data aborts). Do I
misunderstand something?
