lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jun]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v16 02/16] arm64: untag user pointers in access_ok and __uaccess_mask_ptr
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 07:09:46PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:57 PM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 06:53:27PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 06:55:04PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
> > > > index e5d5f31c6d36..9164ecb5feca 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
> > > > @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ static inline unsigned long __range_ok(const void __user *addr, unsigned long si
> > > > return ret;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > -#define access_ok(addr, size) __range_ok(addr, size)
> > > > +#define access_ok(addr, size) __range_ok(untagged_addr(addr), size)
> > >
> > > I'm going to propose an opt-in method here (RFC for now). We can't have
> > > a check in untagged_addr() since this is already used throughout the
> > > kernel for both user and kernel addresses (khwasan) but we can add one
> > > in __range_ok(). The same prctl() option will be used for controlling
> > > the precise/imprecise mode of MTE later on. We can use a TIF_ flag here
> > > assuming that this will be called early on and any cloned thread will
> > > inherit this.
> >
> > Updated patch, inlining it below. Once we agreed on the approach, I
> > think Andrey can insert in in this series, probably after patch 2. The
> > differences from the one I posted yesterday:
> >
> > - renamed PR_* macros together with get/set variants and the possibility
> > to disable the relaxed ABI
> >
> > - sysctl option - /proc/sys/abi/tagged_addr to disable the ABI globally
> > (just the prctl() opt-in, tasks already using it won't be affected)
> >
> > And, of course, it needs more testing.
>
> Sure, I'll add it to the series.
>
> Should I drop access_ok() change from my patch, since yours just reverts it?

Not necessary, your patch just relaxes the ABI for all apps, mine
tightens it. You could instead move the untagging to __range_ok() and
rebase my patch accordingly.

--
Catalin

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-06-11 19:41    [W:0.114 / U:16.972 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site