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:   Wed, 22 May 2019 21:20:52 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@amd.com>,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
        Jacob Bramley <Jacob.Bramley@arm.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
        amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Evgeniy Stepanov <eugenis@google.com>,
        linux-media@vger.kernel.org, Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Ruben Ayrapetyan <Ruben.Ayrapetyan@arm.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
        Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Kostya Serebryany <kcc@google.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Yishai Hadas <yishaih@mellanox.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@linaro.org>,
        Lee Smith <Lee.Smith@arm.com>,
        Alexander Deucher <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Christian Koenig <Christian.Koenig@amd.com>,
        Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 00/17] arm64: untag user pointers passed to the kernel
Message-ID: <20190523002052.GF15389@ziepe.ca>
References: <cover.1557160186.git.andreyknvl@google.com>
 <20190517144931.GA56186@arrakis.emea.arm.com>
 <20190521184856.GC2922@ziepe.ca>
 <20190522134925.GV28398@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190522134925.GV28398@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 02:49:28PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 03:48:56PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 03:49:31PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > 
> > > The tagged pointers (whether hwasan or MTE) should ideally be a
> > > transparent feature for the application writer but I don't think we can
> > > solve it entirely and make it seamless for the multitude of ioctls().
> > > I'd say you only opt in to such feature if you know what you are doing
> > > and the user code takes care of specific cases like ioctl(), hence the
> > > prctl() proposal even for the hwasan.
> > 
> > I'm not sure such a dire view is warrented.. 
> > 
> > The ioctl situation is not so bad, other than a few special cases,
> > most drivers just take a 'void __user *' and pass it as an argument to
> > some function that accepts a 'void __user *'. sparse et al verify
> > this. 
> > 
> > As long as the core functions do the right thing the drivers will be
> > OK.
> > 
> > The only place things get dicy is if someone casts to unsigned long
> > (ie for vma work) but I think that reflects that our driver facing
> > APIs for VMAs are compatible with static analysis (ie I have no
> > earthly idea why get_user_pages() accepts an unsigned long), not that
> > this is too hard.
> 
> If multiple people will care about this, perhaps we should try to
> annotate types more explicitly in SYSCALL_DEFINEx() and ABI data
> structures.
> 
> For example, we could have a couple of mutually exclusive modifiers
> 
> T __object *
> T __vaddr * (or U __vaddr)
> 
> In the first case the pointer points to an object (in the C sense)
> that the call may dereference but not use for any other purpose.

How would you use these two differently?

So far the kernel has worked that __user should tag any pointer that
is from userspace and then you can't do anything with it until you
transform it into a kernel something

> to tell static analysers the real type of pointers smuggled through
> UAPI disguised as other types (*cough* KVM, etc.)

Yes, that would help alot, we often have to pass pointers through a
u64 in the uAPI, and there is no static checker support to make sure
they are run through the u64_to_user_ptr() helper.

Jason