Re: [BUG] arm64: an infinite loop in generic_perform_write()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2021-07-06 18:50, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 05:22:30PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arm64/lib/copy_to_user.S b/arch/arm64/lib/copy_to_user.S
index 043da90f5dd7..cfb598ae4812 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/lib/copy_to_user.S
+++ b/arch/arm64/lib/copy_to_user.S
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@
  	.endm
  	.macro strh1 reg, ptr, val
-	user_ldst 9998f, sttrh, \reg, \ptr, \val
+	user_ldst 9997f, sttrh, \reg, \ptr, \val
  	.endm
  	.macro ldr1 reg, ptr, val
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@
  	.endm
  	.macro str1 reg, ptr, val
-	user_ldst 9998f, sttr, \reg, \ptr, \val
+	user_ldst 9997f, sttr, \reg, \ptr, \val
  	.endm
  	.macro ldp1 reg1, reg2, ptr, val
@@ -48,12 +48,14 @@
  	.endm
  	.macro stp1 reg1, reg2, ptr, val
-	user_stp 9998f, \reg1, \reg2, \ptr, \val
+	user_stp 9997f, \reg1, \reg2, \ptr, \val
  	.endm
  end	.req	x5
+srcin	.req	x15
  SYM_FUNC_START(__arch_copy_to_user)
  	add	end, x0, x2
+	mov	srcin, x1
  #include "copy_template.S"
  	mov	x0, #0
  	ret
@@ -62,6 +64,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__arch_copy_to_user)
  	.section .fixup,"ax"
  	.align	2
+9997:	cmp	dst, dstin
+	b.ne	9998f
+	// Before being absolutely sure we couldn't copy anything, try harder
+	ldrb	tmp1w, [srcin]
+USER(9998f, sttrb tmp1w, [dstin])
+	add	dst, dstin, #1
  9998:	sub	x0, end, dst			// bytes not copied
  	ret
  	.previous

I think it's worth doing the copy_to_user() fallback in a loop until it
faults or hits the end of the buffer. This would solve the problem we
currently have with writing more bytes than actually reported. The
copy_from_user() is not necessary, a byte would suffice.

The thing is, we don't really have that problem since the set_fs cleanup removed IMP-DEF STP behaviour from the picture - even with the current mess we could perfectly well know which of the two STTRs faulted if we just put a little more effort in. Even, at worst, simply this:

diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/asm-uaccess.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/asm-uaccess.h
index ccedf548dac9..7513758bab3a 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/asm-uaccess.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/asm-uaccess.h
@@ -74,8 +74,9 @@ alternative_else_nop_endif

        .macro user_stp l, reg1, reg2, addr, post_inc
 8888:          sttr    \reg1, [\addr];
-8889:          sttr    \reg2, [\addr, #8];
-               add     \addr, \addr, \post_inc;
+               add     \addr, \addr, \post_inc / 2;
+8889:          sttr    \reg2, [\addr];
+               add     \addr, \addr, \post_inc / 2;

                _asm_extable    8888b,\l;
                _asm_extable    8889b,\l;

But yuck... If you think the potential under-reporting is worth fixing right now, rather than just letting it disappear in a future rewrite, then I'd still rather do it by passing the actual fault address to the current copy_to_user fixup. A retry loop could still technically under-report if the page disappears (or tag changes) between faulting on the second word of a pair and retrying from the first, so we'd want to pin the initial fault down to a single access anyway. All the loop would achieve after that is potentially fill in an extra 1-7 bytes right up to the offending page/tag boundary for the sake of being nice, which I remain unconvinced is worth the bother :)

Cheers,
Robin.




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux