Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1731146 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 4/4] arm64/syscalls: Move address limit check in loop

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH 4/4] arm64/syscalls: Move address limit check in loop Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2017-09-12 20:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 4/4] arm64/syscalls: Move address limit check in loop Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-09-13 10:10 +0200

#1731146 — Re: [PATCH 4/4] arm64/syscalls: Move address limit check in loop

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> Hi Kees,
>
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 08:30:47AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> From: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@google.com>
>>
>> A bug was reported on ARM where set_fs might be called after it was
>> checked on the work pending function. ARM64 is not affected by this bug
>> but has a similar construct. In order to avoid any similar problems in
>> the future, the addr_limit_user_check function is moved at the beginning
>> of the loop.
>>
>> Fixes: cf7de27ab351 ("arm64/syscalls: Check address limit on user-mode return")
>> Reported-by: Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@nxp.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@google.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c | 6 +++---
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> What's the plan for this series? It looks like somehow an old v2 of the
> original series made it into mainline, so I'd like to see these fixes get
> in ASAP. I'm still slightly nervous about pathological setting of the
> FSCHECK flag due to e.g. a PMU IRQ causing a livelock in do_notify_resume,
> but that's at least less likely with this fix :/

Hi! I resent this to Ingo to pick up for -tip. I think he's waiting
for -rc1, IIUC. Ingo, can you comment on timing for this getting sent
to Linus?

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1731441

* Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> > Hi Kees,
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 08:30:47AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> From: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@google.com>
> >>
> >> A bug was reported on ARM where set_fs might be called after it was
> >> checked on the work pending function. ARM64 is not affected by this bug
> >> but has a similar construct. In order to avoid any similar problems in
> >> the future, the addr_limit_user_check function is moved at the beginning
> >> of the loop.
> >>
> >> Fixes: cf7de27ab351 ("arm64/syscalls: Check address limit on user-mode return")
> >> Reported-by: Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@nxp.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@google.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> >> ---
> >>  arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c | 6 +++---
> >>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > What's the plan for this series? It looks like somehow an old v2 of the
> > original series made it into mainline, so I'd like to see these fixes get
> > in ASAP. I'm still slightly nervous about pathological setting of the
> > FSCHECK flag due to e.g. a PMU IRQ causing a livelock in do_notify_resume,
> > but that's at least less likely with this fix :/
> 
> Hi! I resent this to Ingo to pick up for -tip. I think he's waiting
> for -rc1, IIUC. Ingo, can you comment on timing for this getting sent
> to Linus?

Will accelerate them - didn't realize the urgency.

Thanks,

	Ingo

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web