[lkml]   [2020]   [Jul]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: objtool clac/stac handling change..

Le 03/07/2020 à 05:17, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
> Christophe Leroy <> writes:
>> Le 02/07/2020 à 15:34, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
>>> Linus Torvalds <> writes:
>>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 12:59 PM Al Viro <> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 12:04:36PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>>>> That's actually for the access granting. Shutting the access down ends
>>>>>> up always doing the same thing anyway..
>>>>> #define user_read_access_end prevent_current_read_from_user
>>>>> #define user_write_access_end prevent_current_write_to_user
>>>>> static inline void prevent_current_read_from_user(void)
>>>>> {
>>>>> prevent_user_access(NULL, NULL, ~0UL, KUAP_CURRENT_READ);
>>>>> }
>>>>> static inline void prevent_current_write_to_user(void)
>>>>> {
>>>>> prevent_user_access(NULL, NULL, ~0UL, KUAP_CURRENT_WRITE);
>>>>> }
>>>>> and prevent_user_access() has instances that do care about the direction...
>>>> Go and look closer.
>>>> There are three cases:
>>>> (a) the 32-bit book3s case. It looks like it cares, but when you look
>>>> closer, it ends up not caring about the read side, and saving the
>>>> "which address to I allow user writes to" in current->thread.kuap
>>>> (b) the nohash 32-bit case - doesn't care
>>>> (c) the 64-bit books case - doesn't care
>>>> So yes, in the (a) case it does make a difference between reads and
>>>> writes, but at least as far as I can tell, it ignores the read case,
>>>> and has code to avoid the unnecessary "disable user writes" case when
>>>> there was only a read enable done.
>>> Yeah that's my understanding too.
>>> Christophe is the expert on that code so I'll defer to him if I'm wrong.
>>>> Now, it's possible that I'm wrong, but the upshot of that is that even
>>>> on powerpc, I think that if we just made the rule be that "taking a
>>>> user exception should automatically do the 'user_access_end()' for us"
>>>> is trivial.
>>> I think we can do something to make it work.
>>> We don't have an equivalent of x86's ex_handler_uaccess(), so it's not
>>> quite as easy as whacking a user_access_end() in there.
>> Isn't it something easy to do in bad_page_fault() ?
> We'd need to do it there at least.
> But I'm not convinced that's the only place we'd need to do it. We could
> theoretically take a machine check on a user access, and those are
> handled differently on each sub-(sub-sub)-platform, and I think all or
> most of them don't call bad_page_fault().

Indeed, it needs to be done everywhere we do

regs->nip = extable_fixup(entry)

There are half a dozen of places that do that, in additional of
bad_page_fault() that's mainly machine checks, also kprobe.

I think we can create a fixup_exception() function which takes regs and
entry as parameters and does the nip fixup and kuap closuse.

>> Not exactly a call to user_access_end() but altering regs->kuap so that
>> user access is not restored on exception exit.
> Yes.
>>> Probably the simplest option for us is to just handle it in our
>>> unsafe_op_wrap(). I'll try and come up with something tomorrow.
>> unsafe_op_wrap() is not used anymore for unsafe_put_user() as we are now
>> using asm goto.
> Sure, but we could change it back to use unsafe_op_wrap().

But the whole purpose of using goto in unsafe_???_user() is to allow the
use of asm goto. See explanations in commit

> I did a quick hack to do that and see no difference in the generated
> code, but your commit adding put_user_goto() did show better code
> generation, so possibly it depends on compiler version, or my example
> wasn't complicated enough (filldir()).

Yes as explained above it should remove the error checking in the caller
so your exemple was most likely too trivial.


 \ /
  Last update: 2020-07-03 07:29    [W:0.058 / U:0.808 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site