On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 06:18:25PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:

On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 11:55 PM Dave Hansen [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 2/22/19 4:53 AM, Andrey Konovalov wrote:

quoted

The following testing approaches has been taken to find potential issues
with user pointer untagging:

1. Static testing (with sparse [3] and separately with a custom static
   analyzer based on Clang) to track casts of __user pointers to integer
   types to find places where untagging needs to be done.

First of all, it's really cool that you took this approach.  Sounds like
there was a lot of systematic work to fix up the sites in the existing
codebase.

But, isn't this a _bit_ fragile going forward?  Folks can't just "make
sparse" to find issues with missing untags.

Yes, this static approach can only be used as a hint to find some
places where untagging is needed, but certainly not all.

quoted

This seems like something
where we would ideally add an __tagged annotation (or something) to the
source tree and then have sparse rules that can look for missed untags.

This has been suggested before, search for __untagged here [1].
However there are many places in the kernel where a __user pointer is
casted into unsigned long and passed further. I'm not sure if it's
possible apply a __tagged/__untagged kind of attribute to non-pointer
types, is it?

[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10581535/

It's something that should need to be added to sparse since it's
different from what sparse already have (the existing __bitwise and
concept of address-space doesn't seem to do the job here).

-- Luc Van Oostenryck

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel