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;
Date:   Fri, 14 Sep 2018 13:05:10 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>
cc:     "Schaufler, Casey" <casey.schaufler@intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        "Woodhouse, David" <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v6 1/3] x86/speculation: apply IBPB more strictly to
 avoid cross-process data leak
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1809141259010.15880@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809141304180.1473@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1809101119280.15880@cbobk.fhfr.pm> <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1809121055070.15880@cbobk.fhfr.pm> <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1809121105330.15880@cbobk.fhfr.pm> <99FC4B6EFCEFD44486C35F4C281DC6732144BFBC@ORSMSX107.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1809141259010.15880@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, Schaufler, Casey wrote:
> 
> > > -	return security_ptrace_access_check(task, mode);
> > > +	if (!(mode & PTRACE_MODE_NOACCESS_CHK))
> > > +		return security_ptrace_access_check(task, mode);
> > > +	return 0;
> > 
> > Because PTRACE_MODE_IBPB includes PTRACE_MODE_NOAUDIT you
> > shouldn't need this change. 
> 
> That is true, but that's not my concern here. 
> 
> 	security_ptrace_access_check() -> call_int_hook() -> P->hook.FUNC().
> 
> If it's somehow guaranteed that all functions called this ways are fine to 
> be called from scheduler context (wrt. locks), then it's all fine and I'll 
> happily drop that check.
> 
> Is it guaranteed?

The related question is whether it is guaranteed for backports. We don't
want to end up with a separate hell there.

Thanks,

	tglx