On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 07:53:30PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 11:07:03AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 06:53:27PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> > > index 3767fb21a5b8..fd191c5b92aa 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> > > @@ -552,3 +552,18 @@ void arch_setup_new_exec(void)
> > >
> > > ptrauth_thread_init_user(current);
> > > }
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * Enable the relaxed ABI allowing tagged user addresses into the kernel.
> > > + */
> > > +int untagged_uaddr_set_mode(unsigned long arg)
> > > +{
> > > + if (is_compat_task())
> > > + return -ENOTSUPP;
> > > + if (arg)
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > + set_thread_flag(TIF_UNTAGGED_UADDR);
> > > +
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> >
> > I think this should be paired with a flag clearing in copy_thread(),
> > yes? (i.e. each binary needs to opt in)
>
> It indeed needs clearing though not in copy_thread() as that's used on
> clone/fork but rather in flush_thread(), called on the execve() path.
Ah! Yes, thanks.
> And a note to myself: I think PR_UNTAGGED_ADDR (not UADDR) looks better
> in a uapi header, the user doesn't differentiate between uaddr and
> kaddr.
Good point. I would agree. :)
--
Kees Cook
