Re: [PATCH v3 2/7] uaccess: Tell user_access_begin() if it's for a write or not

[hpa@zytor.com]

On January 23, 2020 11:57:57 AM PST, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 11:47 AM christophe leroy
><christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> wrote:
>>
>> I'm going to leave it aside, at least for the time being, and do it
>as a
>> second step later after evaluating the real performance impact. I'll
>> respin tomorrow in that way.
>
>Ok, good.
>
>From a "narrow the access window type" standpoint it does seem to be a
>good idea to specify what kind of user accesses will be done, so I
>don't hate the idea, it's more that I'm not convinced it matters
>enough.
>
>On x86, we have made the rule that user_access_begin/end() can contain
>_very_ few operations, and objtool really does enforce that. With
>objtool and KASAN, you really end up with very small ranges of
>user_access_begin/end().
>
>And since we actually verify it statically on x86-64, I would say that
>the added benefit of narrowing by access type is fairly small. We're
>not going to have complicated code in that user access region, at
>least in generic code.
>
>> > Also, it shouldn't be a "is this a write". What if it's a read
>_and_ a
>> > write? Only a write? Only a read?
>>
>> Indeed that was more: does it includes a write. It's either RO or RW
>
>I would expect that most actual users would be RO or WO, so it's a bit
>odd to have those choices.
>
>Of course, often writing ends up requiring read permissions anyway if
>the architecture has problems with alignment handling or similar, but
>still... The real RW case does exist conceptually (we have
>"copy_in_user()", after all), but still feels like it shouldn't be
>seen as the only _interface_ choice.
>
>IOW, an architecture may decide to turn WO into RW because of
>architecture limitations (or, like x86 and arm, ignore the whole
>RO/RW/WO _entirely_ because there's just a single "allow user space
>accesses" flag), but on an interface layer if we add this flag, I
>really think it should be an explicit "read or write or both".
>
>So thus my "let's try to avoid doing it in the first place, but if we
>_do_ do this, then do it right" plea.
>
>                 Linus

I'm wondering if we should make it a static part of the API instead of a variable.

I have *deep* concern with carrying state in a "key" variable: it's a direct attack vector for a crowbar attack, especially since it is by definition live inside a user access region.

One major reason x86 restricts the regions like this is to minimize the amount of unconstrained state: we don't save and restore the state around, but enter and exit unconditionally, which means that a leaked state will end up having a limited lifespan. Nor is there any state inside the user access region which could be corrupted to leave the region open.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.