lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [BUG] arm64: an infinite loop in generic_perform_write()
From
Date
On 2021-06-29 09:30, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 05:22:30PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
>> Subject: [PATCH] arm64: Avoid premature usercopy failure
>>
>> Al reminds us that the usercopy API must only return complete failure
>> if absolutely nothing could be copied. Currently, if userspace does
>> something silly like giving us an unaligned pointer to Device memory,
>> or a size which overruns MTE tag bounds, we may fail to honour that
>> requirement when faulting on a multi-byte access even though a smaller
>> access could have succeeded.
>>
>> Add a mitigation to the fixup routines to fall back to a single-byte
>> copy if we faulted on a larger access before anything has been written
>> to the destination, to guarantee making *some* forward progress. We
>> needn't be too concerned about the overall performance since this should
>> only occur when callers are doing something a bit dodgy in the first
>> place. Particularly broken userspace might still be able to trick
>> generic_perform_write() into an infinite loop by targeting write() at
>> an mmap() of some read-only device register where the fault-in load
>> succeeds but any store synchronously aborts such that copy_to_user() is
>> genuinely unable to make progress, but, well, don't do that...
>>
>> Reported-by: Chen Huang <chenhuang5@huawei.com>
>> Suggested-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
>> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
>
> Thanks Robin for putting this together. I'll write some MTE kselftests
> to check for regressions in the future.
>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/lib/copy_from_user.S b/arch/arm64/lib/copy_from_user.S
>> index 95cd62d67371..5b720a29a242 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/lib/copy_from_user.S
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/lib/copy_from_user.S
>> @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@
>> .endm
>> .macro ldrh1 reg, ptr, val
>> - user_ldst 9998f, ldtrh, \reg, \ptr, \val
>> + user_ldst 9997f, ldtrh, \reg, \ptr, \val
>> .endm
>> .macro strh1 reg, ptr, val
>> @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@
>> .endm
>> .macro ldr1 reg, ptr, val
>> - user_ldst 9998f, ldtr, \reg, \ptr, \val
>> + user_ldst 9997f, ldtr, \reg, \ptr, \val
>> .endm
>> .macro str1 reg, ptr, val
>> @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@
>> .endm
>> .macro ldp1 reg1, reg2, ptr, val
>> - user_ldp 9998f, \reg1, \reg2, \ptr, \val
>> + user_ldp 9997f, \reg1, \reg2, \ptr, \val
>> .endm
>> .macro stp1 reg1, reg2, ptr, val
>> @@ -53,8 +53,10 @@
>> .endm
>> end .req x5
>> +srcin .req x15
>> SYM_FUNC_START(__arch_copy_from_user)
>> add end, x0, x2
>> + mov srcin, x1
>> #include "copy_template.S"
>> mov x0, #0 // Nothing to copy
>> ret
>> @@ -63,6 +65,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__arch_copy_from_user)
>> .section .fixup,"ax"
>> .align 2
>> +9997: cmp dst, dstin
>> + b.ne 9998f
>> + // Before being absolutely sure we couldn't copy anything, try harder
>> +USER(9998f, ldtrb tmp1w, [srcin])
>> + strb tmp1w, [dstin]
>> + add dst, dstin, #1
>
> Nitpick: can we do just strb tmb1w, [dst], #1? It matches the strb1
> macro in this file.

Oh, of course; I think I befuddled myself there and failed to consider
that by this point we've already mandated that dstin == dst (so that we
can use srcin because src may have advanced already), so in fact we
*can* use dst as the base register to avoid the shuffling, and
post-index this one. I'll clean that up.

> Either way, it looks fine to me.
>
> Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>

Thanks!

Robin.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-06-29 12:03    [W:0.079 / U:1.888 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site