Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] x86/syscalls: Specific usage of verify_pre_usermode_state

Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] x86/syscalls: Specific usage of verify_pre_usermode_state

[H. Peter Anvin]

<skinsbursky@virtuozzo.com>,Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@virtuozzo.com>,Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>,Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,He Chen <he.chen@linux.intel.com>,Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@arm.com>,Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,"David A . Long" <dave.long@linaro.org>,Pratyush Anand <panand@redhat.com>,Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>,Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@mellanox.com>,linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,linux-api@vger.kernel.org,x86@kernel.org,linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com
From: hpa@zytor.com
Message-ID: <BB78ABF9-382E-43E8-BAC6-1EA6416A30DB@zytor.com>

On March 11, 2017 1:42:00 AM PST, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>* Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@google.com> wrote:
>
>> Implement specific usage of verify_pre_usermode_state for user-mode
>> returns for x86.
>> ---
>> Based on next-20170308
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/Kconfig                        |  1 +
>>  arch/x86/entry/common.c                 |  3 +++
>>  arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S               | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>>  arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable_64_types.h | 11 +++++++++++
>>  arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h        | 11 -----------
>>  5 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
>> index 005df7c825f5..6d48e18e6f09 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
>> +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
>> @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ config X86
>>  	select ARCH_MIGHT_HAVE_ACPI_PDC		if ACPI
>>  	select ARCH_MIGHT_HAVE_PC_PARPORT
>>  	select ARCH_MIGHT_HAVE_PC_SERIO
>> +	select ARCH_NO_SYSCALL_VERIFY_PRE_USERMODE_STATE
>>  	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_ATOMIC_RMW
>>  	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_DEFERRED_STRUCT_PAGE_INIT
>>  	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_NUMA_BALANCING	if X86_64
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/common.c b/arch/x86/entry/common.c
>> index 370c42c7f046..525edbb77f03 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/entry/common.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/common.c
>> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
>>  #include <linux/context_tracking.h>
>>  #include <linux/user-return-notifier.h>
>>  #include <linux/uprobes.h>
>> +#include <linux/syscalls.h>
>>  
>>  #include <asm/desc.h>
>>  #include <asm/traps.h>
>> @@ -180,6 +181,8 @@ __visible inline void
>prepare_exit_to_usermode(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>  	struct thread_info *ti = current_thread_info();
>>  	u32 cached_flags;
>>  
>> +	verify_pre_usermode_state();
>> +
>>  	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING) && WARN_ON(!irqs_disabled()))
>>  		local_irq_disable();
>>  
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
>> index d2b2a2948ffe..04db589be466 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
>> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
>> @@ -218,6 +218,25 @@ entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath:
>>  	testl	$_TIF_ALLWORK_MASK, TASK_TI_flags(%r11)
>>  	jnz	1f
>>  
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Check user-mode state on fast path return, the same check is
>done
>> +	 * under the slow path through syscall_return_slowpath.
>> +	 */
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_BUG_ON_DATA_CORRUPTION
>> +	call	verify_pre_usermode_state
>> +#else
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Similar to set_fs(USER_DS) in verify_pre_usermode_state without
>a
>> +	 * warning.
>> +	 */
>> +	movq	PER_CPU_VAR(current_task), %rax
>> +	movq	$TASK_SIZE_MAX, %rcx
>> +	cmp	%rcx, TASK_addr_limit(%rax)
>> +	jz	1f
>> +	movq	%rcx, TASK_addr_limit(%rax)
>> +1:
>> +#endif
>> +
>>  	LOCKDEP_SYS_EXIT
>>  	TRACE_IRQS_ON		/* user mode is traced as IRQs on */
>>  	movq	RIP(%rsp), %rcx
>
>Ugh, so you call an assembly function just to ... call another
>function.
>
>Plus why is it in assembly to begin with? Is this some older code that
>got
>written when the x86 entry code was in assembly, and never properly
>converted to C?
>
>Thanks,
>
>	Ingo

The code does a compare to jump around a store.  It would be much cleaner and faster to simply clobber the value unconditionally.  If there is a test it should be to avoid the function call, not (only) the assignment.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] x86/syscalls: Specific usage of verify_pre_usermode_state

[H. Peter Anvin]

Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,Stanislav Kinsburskiy <skinsbursky@virtuozzo.com>,Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@virtuozzo.com>,Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>,Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,He Chen <he.chen@linux.intel.com>,Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@arm.com>,Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,"David A . Long" <dave.long@linaro.org>,Pratyush Anand <panand@redhat.com>,Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>,Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@mellanox.com>,linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,the arch/x86 maintainers
<x86@kernel.org>,"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>
From: hpa@zytor.com
Message-ID: <E0C934E7-6789-4598-AF55-468C84B8568B@zytor.com>

On March 22, 2017 2:11:12 PM PDT, Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@google.com> wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 1:49 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
>> On 03/22/17 13:41, Thomas Garnier wrote:
>>>>> with the change below for additional feedback.
>>>>
>>>> Can you specify what that means?
>>>
>>> If I set inline by default, the compiler chose not to inline it on
>>> x86. If I force inline the size impact was actually bigger (without
>>> the architecture specific code).
>>>
>>
>> That's utterly bizarre.  Something strange is going on there.  I
>suspect
>> the right thing to do is to out-of-line the error case only, but even
>> that seems strange.  It should be something like four instructions
>inline.
>>
>
>The compiler seemed to often inline other functions called by the
>syscall handlers. I assume the growth was due to changes in code
>optimization because the function is much larger at the end.
>
>>>>
>>>> On x86, where there is only one caller of this, it really seems
>like it
>>>> ought to reduce the overhead to almost zero (since it most likely
>is
>>>> hidden in the pipeline.)
>>>>
>>>> I would like to suggest defining it inline if
>>>> CONFIG_ARCH_NO_SYSCALL_VERIFY_PRE_USERMODE_STATE is set; I really
>don't
>>>> care about an architecture which doesn't have it.
>>>
>>> But if there is only one caller, does the compiler is not suppose to
>>> inline the function based on options?
>>
>> If it is marked static in the same file, yes, but you have it in a
>> different file from what I can tell.
>
>If we do global optimization, it should. Having it as a static inline
>make it easier on all types of builds.
>
>>
>>> The assembly will call it too, so I would need an inline and a
>>> non-inline based on the caller.
>>
>> Where?  I don't see that anywhere, at least for x86.
>
>After the latest changes on x86, yes. On arm/arm64, we call it with
>the CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION config.
>
>>
>>         -hpa
>>

If we do global optimization, yes, but global optimization (generally called link-time optimization, LTO, on Linux) is very much the exception and not the rule for the Linux kernel at this time.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.