Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/pkeys: Explicitly treat PK #PF on kernel address as a
 bad area
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
References: <20180807172920.8766-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
 <20180904195030.GA6269@linux.intel.com>
 <CALCETrU-HXfr_eAfeS1t7JH+-gOh0ZfAoGxjcOckxEX1fN_YDA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Autocrypt: addr=dave.hansen@intel.com; keydata=
 xsFNBE6HMP0BEADIMA3XYkQfF3dwHlj58Yjsc4E5y5G67cfbt8dvaUq2fx1lR0K9h1bOI6fC
 oAiUXvGAOxPDsB/P6UEOISPpLl5IuYsSwAeZGkdQ5g6m1xq7AlDJQZddhr/1DC/nMVa/2BoY
 2UnKuZuSBu7lgOE193+7Uks3416N2hTkyKUSNkduyoZ9F5twiBhxPJwPtn/wnch6n5RsoXsb
 ygOEDxLEsSk/7eyFycjE+btUtAWZtx+HseyaGfqkZK0Z9bT1lsaHecmB203xShwCPT49Blxz
 VOab8668QpaEOdLGhtvrVYVK7x4skyT3nGWcgDCl5/Vp3TWA4K+IofwvXzX2ON/Mj7aQwf5W
 iC+3nWC7q0uxKwwsddJ0Nu+dpA/UORQWa1NiAftEoSpk5+nUUi0WE+5DRm0H+TXKBWMGNCFn
 c6+EKg5zQaa8KqymHcOrSXNPmzJuXvDQ8uj2J8XuzCZfK4uy1+YdIr0yyEMI7mdh4KX50LO1
 pmowEqDh7dLShTOif/7UtQYrzYq9cPnjU2ZW4qd5Qz2joSGTG9eCXLz5PRe5SqHxv6ljk8mb
 ApNuY7bOXO/A7T2j5RwXIlcmssqIjBcxsRRoIbpCwWWGjkYjzYCjgsNFL6rt4OL11OUF37wL
 QcTl7fbCGv53KfKPdYD5hcbguLKi/aCccJK18ZwNjFhqr4MliQARAQABzShEYXZpZCBDaHJp
 c3RvcGhlciBIYW5zZW4gPGRhdmVAc3I3MS5uZXQ+wsF7BBMBAgAlAhsDBgsJCAcDAgYVCAIJ
 CgsEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAUCTo3k0QIZAQAKCRBoNZUwcMmSsMO2D/421Xg8pimb9mPzM5N7khT0
 2MCnaGssU1T59YPE25kYdx2HntwdO0JA27Wn9xx5zYijOe6B21ufrvsyv42auCO85+oFJWfE
 K2R/IpLle09GDx5tcEmMAHX6KSxpHmGuJmUPibHVbfep2aCh9lKaDqQR07gXXWK5/yU1Dx0r
 VVFRaHTasp9fZ9AmY4K9/BSA3VkQ8v3OrxNty3OdsrmTTzO91YszpdbjjEFZK53zXy6tUD2d
 e1i0kBBS6NLAAsqEtneplz88T/v7MpLmpY30N9gQU3QyRC50jJ7LU9RazMjUQY1WohVsR56d
 ORqFxS8ChhyJs7BI34vQusYHDTp6PnZHUppb9WIzjeWlC7Jc8lSBDlEWodmqQQgp5+6AfhTD
 kDv1a+W5+ncq+Uo63WHRiCPuyt4di4/0zo28RVcjtzlGBZtmz2EIC3vUfmoZbO/Gn6EKbYAn
 rzz3iU/JWV8DwQ+sZSGu0HmvYMt6t5SmqWQo/hyHtA7uF5Wxtu1lCgolSQw4t49ZuOyOnQi5
 f8R3nE7lpVCSF1TT+h8kMvFPv3VG7KunyjHr3sEptYxQs4VRxqeirSuyBv1TyxT+LdTm6j4a
 mulOWf+YtFRAgIYyyN5YOepDEBv4LUM8Tz98lZiNMlFyRMNrsLV6Pv6SxhrMxbT6TNVS5D+6
 UorTLotDZKp5+M7BTQRUY85qARAAsgMW71BIXRgxjYNCYQ3Xs8k3TfAvQRbHccky50h99TUY
 sqdULbsb3KhmY29raw1bgmyM0a4DGS1YKN7qazCDsdQlxIJp9t2YYdBKXVRzPCCsfWe1dK/q
 66UVhRPP8EGZ4CmFYuPTxqGY+dGRInxCeap/xzbKdvmPm01Iw3YFjAE4PQ4hTMr/H76KoDbD
 cq62U50oKC83ca/PRRh2QqEqACvIH4BR7jueAZSPEDnzwxvVgzyeuhwqHY05QRK/wsKuhq7s
 UuYtmN92Fasbxbw2tbVLZfoidklikvZAmotg0dwcFTjSRGEg0Gr3p/xBzJWNavFZZ95Rj7Et
 db0lCt0HDSY5q4GMR+SrFbH+jzUY/ZqfGdZCBqo0cdPPp58krVgtIGR+ja2Mkva6ah94/oQN
 lnCOw3udS+Eb/aRcM6detZr7XOngvxsWolBrhwTQFT9D2NH6ryAuvKd6yyAFt3/e7r+HHtkU
 kOy27D7IpjngqP+b4EumELI/NxPgIqT69PQmo9IZaI/oRaKorYnDaZrMXViqDrFdD37XELwQ
 gmLoSm2VfbOYY7fap/AhPOgOYOSqg3/Nxcapv71yoBzRRxOc4FxmZ65mn+q3rEM27yRztBW9
 AnCKIc66T2i92HqXCw6AgoBJRjBkI3QnEkPgohQkZdAb8o9WGVKpfmZKbYBo4pEAEQEAAcLB
 XwQYAQIACQUCVGPOagIbDAAKCRBoNZUwcMmSsJeCEACCh7P/aaOLKWQxcnw47p4phIVR6pVL
 e4IEdR7Jf7ZL00s3vKSNT+nRqdl1ugJx9Ymsp8kXKMk9GSfmZpuMQB9c6io1qZc6nW/3TtvK
 pNGz7KPPtaDzvKA4S5tfrWPnDr7n15AU5vsIZvgMjU42gkbemkjJwP0B1RkifIK60yQqAAlT
 YZ14P0dIPdIPIlfEPiAWcg5BtLQU4Wg3cNQdpWrCJ1E3m/RIlXy/2Y3YOVVohfSy+4kvvYU3
 lXUdPb04UPw4VWwjcVZPg7cgR7Izion61bGHqVqURgSALt2yvHl7cr68NYoFkzbNsGsye9ft
 M9ozM23JSgMkRylPSXTeh5JIK9pz2+etco3AfLCKtaRVysjvpysukmWMTrx8QnI5Nn5MOlJj
 1Ov4/50JY9pXzgIDVSrgy6LYSMc4vKZ3QfCY7ipLRORyalFDF3j5AGCMRENJjHPD6O7bl3Xo
 4DzMID+8eucbXxKiNEbs21IqBZbbKdY1GkcEGTE7AnkA3Y6YB7I/j9mQ3hCgm5muJuhM/2Fr
 OPsw5tV/LmQ5GXH0JQ/TZXWygyRFyyI2FqNTx4WHqUn3yFj8rwTAU1tluRUYyeLy0ayUlKBH
 ybj0N71vWO936MqP6haFERzuPAIpxj2ezwu0xb1GjTk4ynna6h5GjnKgdfOWoRtoWndMZxbA
 z5cecg==
Message-ID: <8a62de3e-defa-6681-c853-cd5140c5f0b5@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 Sep 2018 14:21:35 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrU-HXfr_eAfeS1t7JH+-gOh0ZfAoGxjcOckxEX1fN_YDA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 09/04/2018 12:56 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I have no objection to this patch.
> 
> Dave, why did you think that we could get a PK fault on the vsyscall
> page, even on kernels that still marked it executable?  Sure, you
> could get an instruction in the vsyscall page to get a PK fault, but
> CR2 wouldn't point to the vsyscall page, right?

I'm inferring the CR2 value from the page fault trace point.  I see
entries like this:

 protection_keys-4313  [002] d... 420257.094541: page_fault_user:
address=_end ip=_end error_code=0x15

But, that's not a PK fault, and it triggers the "misaligned vsyscall
(exploit attempt or buggy program)" stuff in dmesg.  It's just the
symptom of trying to execute the non-executable vsyscall page.

I'm not a super big fan of this particular patch, though.  The
fault_in_kernel_space() check is really presuming two things:
1. pkey faults (PF_PK=1) only occur on user pages (_PAGE_USER=1)
2. fault_in_kernel_space()==1 addresses are never user pages

#1 is a hardware expectation.  We *can* look for that directly by just
making sure that X86_PF_PK is only set when it also comes with
X86_PF_USER in the hardware page fault error code.

(...
	Aside: We should probably explicitly separate out the hardware
	error code from the software-munged version, like we do here:
	>         if (user_mode(regs)) {
	>                 local_irq_enable();
	>                 error_code |= X86_PF_USER)

But, #2 is a bit of a more loose check.  It wasn't true for the recent
vsyscall, and I've also seen goofy drivers map memory out to userspace
quite a few times in the kernel address space.

So, I'd much rather see a X86_PF_USER check than a X86_PF_USER check.

But, as for pkeys...

The original intent here was to relay: "protection key faults can never
be spurious".  The reason in my silly comment was that we don't do lazy
flushing, but that's imprecise: the real reasoning is that we don't ever
have kernel pages on which we can take protection key faults.

IOW, I think the check here should be for "protection key faults only
occur on user pages", and all the *spurious* checking should be looking
at *just* user vs. kernel pages, like:

static int spurious_fault_check(unsigned long error_code, pte_t *pte)
{
	/* Only expect spurious faults on kernel pages: */
	WARN_ON_ONCE(pte_flags(*pte) & _PAGE_USER);
	/* Only expect spurious faults originating from kernel code: */
	WARN_ON_ONCE(error_code & X86_PF_USER);
	...