lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jun]   [12]   [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
Hi Vincenzo,

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 06:09:10PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> > index 3767fb21a5b8..69d0be1fc708 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> > @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
> > #include <linux/kernel.h>
> > #include <linux/mm.h>
> > #include <linux/stddef.h>
> > +#include <linux/sysctl.h>
> > #include <linux/unistd.h>
> > #include <linux/user.h>
> > #include <linux/delay.h>
> > @@ -323,6 +324,7 @@ void flush_thread(void)
> > fpsimd_flush_thread();
> > tls_thread_flush();
> > flush_ptrace_hw_breakpoint(current);
> > + clear_thread_flag(TIF_TAGGED_ADDR);
>
> Nit: in line we the other functions in thread_flush we could have something like
> "tagged_addr_thread_flush", maybe inlined.

The other functions do a lot more than clearing a TIF flag, so they
deserved their own place. We could do this when adding MTE support. I
think we also need to check what other TIF flags we may inadvertently
pass on execve(), maybe have a mask clearing.

> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h b/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h
> > index 094bb03b9cc2..2e927b3e9d6c 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h
> > @@ -229,4 +229,9 @@ struct prctl_mm_map {
> > # define PR_PAC_APDBKEY (1UL << 3)
> > # define PR_PAC_APGAKEY (1UL << 4)
> >
> > +/* Tagged user address controls for arm64 */
> > +#define PR_SET_TAGGED_ADDR_CTRL 55
> > +#define PR_GET_TAGGED_ADDR_CTRL 56
> > +# define PR_TAGGED_ADDR_ENABLE (1UL << 0)
> > +
> > #endif /* _LINUX_PRCTL_H */
> > diff --git a/kernel/sys.c b/kernel/sys.c
> > index 2969304c29fe..ec48396b4943 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sys.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sys.c
> > @@ -124,6 +124,12 @@
> > #ifndef PAC_RESET_KEYS
> > # define PAC_RESET_KEYS(a, b) (-EINVAL)
> > #endif
> > +#ifndef SET_TAGGED_ADDR_CTRL
> > +# define SET_TAGGED_ADDR_CTRL(a) (-EINVAL)
> > +#endif
> > +#ifndef GET_TAGGED_ADDR_CTRL
> > +# define GET_TAGGED_ADDR_CTRL() (-EINVAL)
> > +#endif
> >
> > /*
> > * this is where the system-wide overflow UID and GID are defined, for
> > @@ -2492,6 +2498,16 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(prctl, int, option, unsigned long, arg2, unsigned long, arg3,
> > return -EINVAL;
> > error = PAC_RESET_KEYS(me, arg2);
> > break;
> > + case PR_SET_TAGGED_ADDR_CTRL:
> > + if (arg3 || arg4 || arg5)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + error = SET_TAGGED_ADDR_CTRL(arg2);
> > + break;
> > + case PR_GET_TAGGED_ADDR_CTRL:
> > + if (arg2 || arg3 || arg4 || arg5)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + error = GET_TAGGED_ADDR_CTRL();
> > + break;
>
> Why do we need two prctl here? We could have only one and use arg2 as set/get
> and arg3 as a parameter. What do you think?

This follows the other PR_* options, e.g. PR_SET_VL/GET_VL,
PR_*_FP_MODE. We will use other bits in arg2, for example to set the
precise vs imprecise MTE trapping.

--
Catalin

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-06-12 11:33    [W:0.095 / U:7.276 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site