From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_NEOMUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2E50C282CE for ; Wed, 22 May 2019 11:49:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D5CC2173C for ; Wed, 22 May 2019 11:49:23 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8D5CC2173C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id E76016B0003; Wed, 22 May 2019 07:49:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id E27A16B0006; Wed, 22 May 2019 07:49:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id D15D26B0007; Wed, 22 May 2019 07:49:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from mail-ed1-f70.google.com (mail-ed1-f70.google.com [209.85.208.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83B166B0003 for ; Wed, 22 May 2019 07:49:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ed1-f70.google.com with SMTP id f41so3330394ede.1 for ; Wed, 22 May 2019 04:49:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-original-authentication-results:x-gm-message-state:date:from:to :cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=07zo5bUGbCrcFqWvLhX7HHQq+iwmUl+VvWQFGqImRa4=; b=W6UXh6P2IJm5SDGtzDL7YsA1t71JHP32oltr5wLo6DqtePa6ui9msGgD+gvi3ypMam cwx59XOtDRw+yqiKnQJ8tRvhRVo3dpfwvsMBzkSFzMH+YWDqJg0TFbn/1uuv/Tih+BQi s5Cnv3s54juB+V1rluyYND1NYP+dFqcs40iDzV207m9s0arv4GXClfpdfn+WZcllG1vy UBQcei/noUd++Y9tKQINutomduzKc8yqzBHi7RkieyxQAfNSIqwo8I7Qv9sBsUeqhexG 3hhKX4aR22dhM85AT84CfM3fJTD4VQ0kNjqq7Aw6vNv05+kNexfbU9xjfQphZTaCEo4r JQPA== X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of catalin.marinas@arm.com designates 217.140.101.70 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=catalin.marinas@arm.com X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVefluS+rZMiYRiKlWnOxVbvH3cS30j5IwNzCxERSAGU0YqLCOs 0WKA19qrCRzRHFL8As2vsoSv4xTyLwzHyjcJaEcP4LAzRF4IOGWR0bzXzl2Y/xgc9gqy5C1BKAS ktiawapCLOGumg1C1H+80E13DBTOfUhaO5DmyptZGDDwUvJC6wepm55PtE/7C3nvVHQ== X-Received: by 2002:a50:f9cc:: with SMTP id a12mr89528449edq.272.1558525762101; Wed, 22 May 2019 04:49:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzHs43vT8tGPG3ezoScrjxTBaWi8s1IlnWgyvwzgqXIqdyNUR3w4az3TyZVcv/GkJnLHJIk X-Received: by 2002:a50:f9cc:: with SMTP id a12mr89528358edq.272.1558525760838; Wed, 22 May 2019 04:49:20 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1558525760; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=xYp5Tdwf+DqTB5eZVIaCCnd3G5Qo5bkAkYuYInTTRAUpKr+hglCky6wVFB2kzTQzE8 LesSTq2kwoNjo5tIhU6QUALb+MGLKeds2uzCMvuAXHbmFx4O9dn2fsrWtI4Hz12lMXMW DIodDM9RvHxdBaMeHmxIeqtXUWLQ7uQpCmTjIwFFZhOsB5/8XmNt+3Uw0K7gEwiJ+uKv pjo9VUAffC2aeU/qC5vA0T2xJpJKbr4reFKHc8qwb+9eVk60jgbvHBnbBfHdC6QVTTZI CNet1RpojKmMriq2MeY4JK33PC7cmumlicqOon7ACgmvYfRi3YgbWwMYltVi/tO4I7Un 6BhQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=07zo5bUGbCrcFqWvLhX7HHQq+iwmUl+VvWQFGqImRa4=; b=VvQgTHsQVxOlcgYepyUeS10tssYjdaUbK8UMMdGIi43rZzo2X9TJGgw/1j4gzZ2CU9 rCtoYPc1wCDtIdZwIeOL6T9oCoG/i8rkkiLCBeBH2+2uuV50VlQwdXLatcM2K45235u1 bWzikCmRzK0esW/r2ZYdB4Zz96DpOywIpueMDs2gCBR9hGaGy3MZPqPTYN6SAKECF0sU X01OAv/73G8MRJOEuLV3yyqBtFso0ijYBe6OIk9CaG4gcn6yy04P6WT+uB7AwYNsEOkA e9KMhvulVMyn9aJoQRwGFF57cZvJAnUxY+O26Sd5aQ5J/YIG/sJxchWSbh695oVJwSSe tYdg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of catalin.marinas@arm.com designates 217.140.101.70 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=catalin.marinas@arm.com Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com. [217.140.101.70]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id f5si7190316edb.93.2019.05.22.04.49.20 for ; Wed, 22 May 2019 04:49:20 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of catalin.marinas@arm.com designates 217.140.101.70 as permitted sender) client-ip=217.140.101.70; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of catalin.marinas@arm.com designates 217.140.101.70 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=catalin.marinas@arm.com 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) X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: 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