Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:9848:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id x8csp423001pxf; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 07:02:15 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyhnszlfTgDWefPriuYaagOUjveFtJ9e9SCmm1IMC0RPtRoT68Xim2cidE23I7dlLRHBKnU X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:bccc:: with SMTP id lw12mr3446156ejb.268.1615474934873; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 07:02:14 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1615474934; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=l9ZqfEiDY7oEaHWi+LOpor2nSnnjVBwfgBS7Q8KyXwpXOhTs8NTztaN8E8cmLWeIJ4 JSJuAPPYlqYAj8L4TsKZZsvtMu0lK9x1viyOS/1aDSGvAaktdHSDffpjgMpPU3Mdar2R Oj7pesI5uzT6okSn8dPMRvw5BrWxq11FzdnX28hTwiqVqTEuGJUCE+gMM9XDjMayoHq4 DGwMcUHrfvN2c4eua5wug6VLX60Gqg2tAvAVjeCFhJ3TvBz1oCF6G6JanjoVpVbolCax 7IcegohEst+RkBc4OqibmYLtrLFC/La3Cx53w8fDmyF5FT/yCjleV2btHhU6M7xHLEkq Zmhw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:content-transfer-encoding:content-language :in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date:message-id:from:references :cc:to:subject; bh=081PurTBMgzBP171lVVAL8RjheMX6jwXSwN2UHeKqW4=; b=Tdb1YDREZvZgQEsMrozg2FH8Ivv6CyxkUQ8nlBSYoCetG6OG4j0bambM+quPz+bYpq hPA7ZjKILJxOWmP7Xf2PDOABtU3sqkzgnjOtFFPLmsRaklVRKLGwlkraWTThOpEfwUj1 /wzhHuKappFxuUz0/k2yeTl7ZOtVFLkLQrmN+wiTOFnvmfgEtDY8T1phyLMOyuIHxGll oPxAl53oJecGuXdd8giJ+nukdxLvFqUJ3NMLwXeuLXr+/U3ZFnrDnBeH9d05RNKDu/Lw 834D99D2AZUnNqB6F1E5vtMgrWM0sjv06Xkme6M95vrWHB7STq0XuuhVi1JcQJKydr3H mHkQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=arm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ar21si1918566ejc.618.2021.03.11.07.01.50; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 07:02:14 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=arm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233725AbhCKPAt (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 11 Mar 2021 10:00:49 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:37944 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233765AbhCKPAb (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Mar 2021 10:00:31 -0500 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4321C1FB; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 07:00:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.37.8.5] (unknown [10.37.8.5]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 54F7F3F70D; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 07:00:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 8/8] kselftest/arm64: Verify that TCO is enabled in load_unaligned_zeropad() To: Catalin Marinas Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, Andrew Morton , Will Deacon , Dmitry Vyukov , Andrey Ryabinin , Alexander Potapenko , Marco Elver , Evgenii Stepanov , Branislav Rankov , Andrey Konovalov , Lorenzo Pieralisi References: <20210308161434.33424-1-vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> <20210308161434.33424-9-vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> <20210311132509.GB30821@arm.com> From: Vincenzo Frascino Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 15:00:26 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210311132509.GB30821@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 3/11/21 1:25 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 04:14:34PM +0000, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >> load_unaligned_zeropad() and __get/put_kernel_nofault() functions can >> read passed some buffer limits which may include some MTE granule with a >> different tag. >> >> When MTE async mode is enable, the load operation crosses the boundaries >> and the next granule has a different tag the PE sets the TFSR_EL1.TF1 >> bit as if an asynchronous tag fault is happened: >> >> ================================================================== >> BUG: KASAN: invalid-access >> Asynchronous mode enabled: no access details available >> >> CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: init Not tainted 5.12.0-rc1-ge1045c86620d-dirty #8 >> Hardware name: FVP Base RevC (DT) >> Call trace: >> dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1c0 >> show_stack+0x18/0x24 >> dump_stack+0xcc/0x14c >> kasan_report_async+0x54/0x70 >> mte_check_tfsr_el1+0x48/0x4c >> exit_to_user_mode+0x18/0x38 >> finish_ret_to_user+0x4/0x15c >> ================================================================== >> >> Verify that Tag Check Override (TCO) is enabled in these functions before >> the load and disable it afterwards to prevent this to happen. >> >> Note: The issue has been observed only with an MTE enabled userspace. > > The above bug is all about kernel buffers. While userspace can trigger > the relevant code paths, it should not matter whether the user has MTE > enabled or not. Can you please confirm that you can still triggered the > fault with kernel-mode MTE but non-MTE user-space? If not, we may have a > bug somewhere as the two are unrelated: load_unaligned_zeropad() only > acts on kernel buffers and are subject to the kernel MTE tag check fault > mode. > I retried and you are right, it does not matter if it is a MTE or non-MTE user-space. The issue seems to be that this test does not trigger the problem all the times which probably lead me to the wrong conclusions. > I don't think we should have a user-space selftest for this. The bug is > not about a user-kernel interface, so an in-kernel test is more > appropriate. Could we instead add this to the kasan tests and calling > load_unaligned_zeropad() and other functions directly? > I agree with you we should abandon this strategy of triggering the issue due to my comment above. I will investigate the option of having a kasan test and try to come up with one that calls the relevant functions directly. I would prefer though, since the rest of the series is almost ready, to post it in a future series. What do you think? -- Regards, Vincenzo