Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 15 Jan 2021 17:05:56 +0000
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To:     Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>
Cc:     Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>,
        Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>,
        Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@google.com>,
        Branislav Rankov <Branislav.Rankov@arm.com>,
        Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kasan, arm64: fix pointer tags in KASAN reports
Message-ID: <20210115170556.GG16707@gaia>
References: <cover.1610553773.git.andreyknvl@google.com>
 <1965508bcbec62699715d32bef91628ef55b4b44.1610553774.git.andreyknvl@google.com>
 <20210113165441.GC27045@gaia>
 <CAAeHK+y8VyBnAmx_c6N6-40RqKSUKpn-vzfeOEhzAnij93hnqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210115165558.GF16707@gaia>
 <CAAeHK+wNOcA4Zgi5R8+ODMuDkLuMSYHoLinPhoeGstd78TsPjQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAAeHK+wNOcA4Zgi5R8+ODMuDkLuMSYHoLinPhoeGstd78TsPjQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 06:00:36PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 5:56 PM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 05:30:40PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 5:54 PM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 05:03:30PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > > > > As of the "arm64: expose FAR_EL1 tag bits in siginfo" patch, the address
> > > > > that is passed to report_tag_fault has pointer tags in the format of 0x0X,
> > > > > while KASAN uses 0xFX format (note the difference in the top 4 bits).
> > > > >
> > > > > Fix up the pointer tag before calling kasan_report.
> > > > >
> > > > > Link: https://linux-review.googlesource.com/id/I9ced973866036d8679e8f4ae325de547eb969649
> > > > > Fixes: dceec3ff7807 ("arm64: expose FAR_EL1 tag bits in siginfo")
> > > > > Fixes: 4291e9ee6189 ("kasan, arm64: print report from tag fault handler")
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  arch/arm64/mm/fault.c | 2 ++
> > > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> > > > > index 3c40da479899..a218f6f2fdc8 100644
> > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> > > > > @@ -304,6 +304,8 @@ static void report_tag_fault(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
> > > > >  {
> > > > >       bool is_write  = ((esr & ESR_ELx_WNR) >> ESR_ELx_WNR_SHIFT) != 0;
> > > > >
> > > > > +     /* The format of KASAN tags is 0xF<x>. */
> > > > > +     addr |= (0xF0UL << MTE_TAG_SHIFT);
> > > >
> > > > Ah, I see, that top 4 bits are zeroed by do_tag_check_fault(). When this
> > > > was added, the only tag faults were generated for user addresses.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, I'd rather fix it in there based on bit 55, something like (only
> > > > compile-tested):
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> > > > index 3c40da479899..2b71079d2d32 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> > > > @@ -709,10 +709,11 @@ static int do_tag_check_fault(unsigned long far, unsigned int esr,
> > > >                               struct pt_regs *regs)
> > > >  {
> > > >         /*
> > > > -        * The architecture specifies that bits 63:60 of FAR_EL1 are UNKNOWN for tag
> > > > -        * check faults. Mask them out now so that userspace doesn't see them.
> > > > +        * The architecture specifies that bits 63:60 of FAR_EL1 are UNKNOWN
> > > > +        * for tag check faults. Set them to the corresponding bits in the
> > > > +        * untagged address.
> > > >          */
> > > > -       far &= (1UL << 60) - 1;
> > > > +       far = (untagged_addr(far) & ~MTE_TAG_MASK) | (far & MTE_TAG_MASK) ;
> > > >         do_bad_area(far, esr, regs);
> > > >         return 0;
> > > >  }
> > >
> > > BTW, we can do "untagged_addr(far) | (far & MTE_TAG_MASK)" here, as
> > > untagged_addr() doesn't change kernel pointers.
> >
> > untagged_addr() does change tagged kernel pointers, it sign-extends from
> > bit 55. So the top byte becomes 0xff and you can no longer or the tag
> > bits in.
> 
> That's __untagged_addr(), untagged_addr() keeps the bits for kernel
> pointers as of  597399d0cb91.

Ah, you are right. In this case I think we should use __untagged_addr()
above. Even if the tag check fault happened on a kernel address, bits
63:60 are still unknown.

-- 
Catalin