Received: by 2002:a25:86ce:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id y14csp374336ybm; Wed, 22 May 2019 04:50:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwunKguOCxUR5vHf5VThcnUG6idKPYQ0Y9X5JfInzsY/hcJGNqAdfRcL5GLHBuVMgyGilvs X-Received: by 2002:a63:7989:: with SMTP id u131mr80487411pgc.180.1558525842976; Wed, 22 May 2019 04:50:42 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1558525842; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=Ecnp2LMIwdyrdj3QJpCUKwIjz2op7ydEnAEkDnIYix+bqnvFx4KdFNFPfxKvtSIUkf Mhw5kPr4YGAPWQTnB/QO/unAcC59KMEZfRn+IoHrqcZuJJGGasc3+16+s6ruKwf1qvg1 nOQdWjL+pD5tCtMvYpC7JG9Oj+1Nd7G7HHq+VjA1+8v4KQb2c/09fkI+9fWbW4Mm8d7Z UMG10eDASkv+hzb5A7Eps2YV18GzjpHpuWpLDEsMbYIJRLS52+1J9kLYpTfj1T6KkaF7 /pk5JKzYxQVyNgHdkiT3b2RKIOgCf2u+1xYpY/psCnYUvTRHr/9yiGrCXoH0R79eBBRd jd2Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=07zo5bUGbCrcFqWvLhX7HHQq+iwmUl+VvWQFGqImRa4=; b=c+SgitpOtF1+/f6+qvScbWUy61SzIJN3mDf1Fi675dtvcKxbM44djhnnpq++Vm4Nqp 54Xo2PlP+yjy6BKGPGNqCRQC8mB3Ls7HYa9yujIObADL4GJLfd9VMHauW/8G9pK3nF6f zcg7hEXqxlfYnBpUruHyyYX66DRwjkI/t6RYhD2gO2A2RrRbVl3wCvDm2w/HWQSViljx RcgPfsh53KGVWHiZ03iaW0Yf/iradCGlO+IxfYQSGU8O3NJuNcUeqcNqagAi7Yp48Tzp uoo851NIm5na62hfksPo70ozkTrIDt7kiRBhCSRZsYdh7MWVPEkzDgHpOlCm7W09ozTQ GoYw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id s1si18031719pgs.62.2019.05.22.04.50.27; Wed, 22 May 2019 04:50:42 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729159AbfEVLtU (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 22 May 2019 07:49:20 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:48626 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727464AbfEVLtU (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 May 2019 07:49:20 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC8180D; Wed, 22 May 2019 04:49:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mbp (usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com [217.140.101.70]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AE7643F575; Wed, 22 May 2019 04:49:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 12:49:10 +0100 From: Catalin Marinas To: Andrey Konovalov Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Vincenzo Frascino , Will Deacon , Mark Rutland , Andrew Morton , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Kees Cook , Yishai Hadas , Felix Kuehling , Alexander Deucher , Christian Koenig , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Jens Wiklander , Alex Williamson , Leon Romanovsky , Dmitry Vyukov , Kostya Serebryany , Evgeniy Stepanov , Lee Smith , Ramana Radhakrishnan , Jacob Bramley , Ruben Ayrapetyan , Robin Murphy , Luc Van Oostenryck , Dave Martin , Kevin Brodsky , Szabolcs Nagy Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 05/17] arms64: untag user pointers passed to memory syscalls Message-ID: <20190522114910.emlckebwzv2qz42i@mbp> References: <00eb4c63fefc054e2c8d626e8fedfca11d7c2600.1557160186.git.andreyknvl@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <00eb4c63fefc054e2c8d626e8fedfca11d7c2600.1557160186.git.andreyknvl@google.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 06:30:51PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote: > This patch is a part of a series that extends arm64 kernel ABI to allow to > pass tagged user pointers (with the top byte set to something else other > than 0x00) as syscall arguments. > > This patch allows tagged pointers to be passed to the following memory > syscalls: brk, get_mempolicy, madvise, mbind, mincore, mlock, mlock2, > mmap, mmap_pgoff, mprotect, mremap, msync, munlock, munmap, > remap_file_pages, shmat and shmdt. > > This is done by untagging pointers passed to these syscalls in the > prologues of their handlers. I'll go through them one by one to see if we can tighten the expected ABI while having the MTE in mind. > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/sys.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/sys.c > index b44065fb1616..933bb9f3d6ec 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/sys.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/sys.c > @@ -35,10 +35,33 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE6(mmap, unsigned long, addr, unsigned long, len, > { > if (offset_in_page(off) != 0) > return -EINVAL; > - > + addr = untagged_addr(addr); > return ksys_mmap_pgoff(addr, len, prot, flags, fd, off >> PAGE_SHIFT); > } If user passes a tagged pointer to mmap() and the address is honoured (or MAP_FIXED is given), what is the expected return pointer? Does it need to be tagged with the value from the hint? With MTE, we may want to use this as a request for the default colour of the mapped pages (still under discussion). > +SYSCALL_DEFINE6(arm64_mmap_pgoff, unsigned long, addr, unsigned long, len, > + unsigned long, prot, unsigned long, flags, > + unsigned long, fd, unsigned long, pgoff) > +{ > + addr = untagged_addr(addr); > + return ksys_mmap_pgoff(addr, len, prot, flags, fd, pgoff); > +} We don't have __NR_mmap_pgoff on arm64. > +SYSCALL_DEFINE5(arm64_mremap, unsigned long, addr, unsigned long, old_len, > + unsigned long, new_len, unsigned long, flags, > + unsigned long, new_addr) > +{ > + addr = untagged_addr(addr); > + new_addr = untagged_addr(new_addr); > + return ksys_mremap(addr, old_len, new_len, flags, new_addr); > +} Similar comment as for mmap(), do we want the tag from new_addr to be preserved? In addition, should we check that the two tags are identical or mremap() should become a way to repaint a memory region? > +SYSCALL_DEFINE2(arm64_munmap, unsigned long, addr, size_t, len) > +{ > + addr = untagged_addr(addr); > + return ksys_munmap(addr, len); > +} This looks fine. > +SYSCALL_DEFINE1(arm64_brk, unsigned long, brk) > +{ > + brk = untagged_addr(brk); > + return ksys_brk(brk); > +} I wonder whether brk() should simply not accept tags, and should not return them (similar to the prctl(PR_SET_MM) discussion). We could document this in the ABI requirements. > +SYSCALL_DEFINE5(arm64_get_mempolicy, int __user *, policy, > + unsigned long __user *, nmask, unsigned long, maxnode, > + unsigned long, addr, unsigned long, flags) > +{ > + addr = untagged_addr(addr); > + return ksys_get_mempolicy(policy, nmask, maxnode, addr, flags); > +} > + > +SYSCALL_DEFINE3(arm64_madvise, unsigned long, start, > + size_t, len_in, int, behavior) > +{ > + start = untagged_addr(start); > + return ksys_madvise(start, len_in, behavior); > +} > + > +SYSCALL_DEFINE6(arm64_mbind, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, len, > + unsigned long, mode, const unsigned long __user *, nmask, > + unsigned long, maxnode, unsigned int, flags) > +{ > + start = untagged_addr(start); > + return ksys_mbind(start, len, mode, nmask, maxnode, flags); > +} > + > +SYSCALL_DEFINE2(arm64_mlock, unsigned long, start, size_t, len) > +{ > + start = untagged_addr(start); > + return ksys_mlock(start, len, VM_LOCKED); > +} > + > +SYSCALL_DEFINE2(arm64_mlock2, unsigned long, start, size_t, len) > +{ > + start = untagged_addr(start); > + return ksys_mlock(start, len, VM_LOCKED); > +} > + > +SYSCALL_DEFINE2(arm64_munlock, unsigned long, start, size_t, len) > +{ > + start = untagged_addr(start); > + return ksys_munlock(start, len); > +} > + > +SYSCALL_DEFINE3(arm64_mprotect, unsigned long, start, size_t, len, > + unsigned long, prot) > +{ > + start = untagged_addr(start); > + return ksys_mprotect_pkey(start, len, prot, -1); > +} > + > +SYSCALL_DEFINE3(arm64_msync, unsigned long, start, size_t, len, int, flags) > +{ > + start = untagged_addr(start); > + return ksys_msync(start, len, flags); > +} > + > +SYSCALL_DEFINE3(arm64_mincore, unsigned long, start, size_t, len, > + unsigned char __user *, vec) > +{ > + start = untagged_addr(start); > + return ksys_mincore(start, len, vec); > +} These look fine. > +SYSCALL_DEFINE5(arm64_remap_file_pages, unsigned long, start, > + unsigned long, size, unsigned long, prot, > + unsigned long, pgoff, unsigned long, flags) > +{ > + start = untagged_addr(start); > + return ksys_remap_file_pages(start, size, prot, pgoff, flags); > +} While this has been deprecated for some time, I presume user space still invokes it? > +SYSCALL_DEFINE3(arm64_shmat, int, shmid, char __user *, shmaddr, int, shmflg) > +{ > + shmaddr = untagged_addr(shmaddr); > + return ksys_shmat(shmid, shmaddr, shmflg); > +} > + > +SYSCALL_DEFINE1(arm64_shmdt, char __user *, shmaddr) > +{ > + shmaddr = untagged_addr(shmaddr); > + return ksys_shmdt(shmaddr); > +} Do we actually want to allow shared tagged memory? Who's going to tag it? If not, we can document it as not supported. -- Catalin