Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 06:28:00 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 8/9] x86: use __uaccess_begin_nospec and ASM_IFENCE in
 get_user paths
Message-ID: <20180117062800.GU13338@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <151586744180.5820.13215059696964205856.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <151586748981.5820.14559543798744763404.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <CA+55aFzoAR+MYX+ub0xZ32OsT7WtD5Kru2t6LhwB1buLWPResQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+55aFxsg5+u7bCHj1N8xyyVf7-RMm-5ACNp=ENNrKL78omaow@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPcyv4hfUx8gLScuNewY3+BWi4YBS_Z9dhvYf1D+WEWDDCShXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPcyv4g94iysWqz64KNk=HDdx6+b2e0O-rRrnFZDqfNSR3Xrjg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4g94iysWqz64KNk=HDdx6+b2e0O-rRrnFZDqfNSR3Xrjg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 08:30:17PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 2:23 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 11:33 AM, Linus Torvalds
> [..]
> > I'll respin this set along those lines, and drop the ifence bits.
> 
> So now I'm not so sure. Yes, get_user_{1,2,4,8} can mask the pointer
> with the address limit result, but this doesn't work for the
> access_ok() + __get_user() case. We can either change the access_ok()
> calling convention to return a properly masked pointer to be used in
> subsequent calls to __get_user(), or go with lfence on every
> __get_user call. There seem to be several drivers that open code
> copy_from_user() with __get_user loops, so the 'fence every
> __get_user' approach might have noticeable overhead. On the other hand
> the access_ok conversion, while it could be scripted with coccinelle,
> is ~300 sites (VERIFY_READ), if you're concerned about having
> something small to merge for 4.15.
> 
> I think the access_ok() conversion to return a speculation sanitized
> pointer or NULL is the way to go unless I'm missing something simpler.
> Other ideas?

What masked pointer?  access_ok() exists for other architectures as well,
and the fewer callers remain outside of arch/*, the better.

Anything that open-codes copy_from_user() that way is *ALREADY* fucked if
it cares about the overhead - recent x86 boxen will have slowdown from
hell on stac()/clac() pairs.  Anything like that on a hot path is already
deep in trouble and needs to be found and fixed.  What drivers would those
be?  We don't have that many __get_user() users left outside of arch/*
anymore...