Thread (88 messages) 88 messages, 4 authors, 2020-10-01

Re: [PATCH v3 26/39] arm64: mte: Add in-kernel tag fault handler

From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Date: 2020-09-25 10:49:41
Also in: linux-mm, lkml

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:50:33AM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
index 991dd5f031e4..c7fff8daf2a7 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
@@ -200,13 +200,36 @@ do {									\
 				CONFIG_ARM64_PAN));			\
 } while (0)
 
+/*
+ * The Tag Check Flag (TCF) mode for MTE is per EL, hence TCF0
+ * affects EL0 and TCF affects EL1 irrespective of which TTBR is
+ * used.
+ * The kernel accesses TTBR0 usually with LDTR/STTR instructions
+ * when UAO is available, so these would act as EL0 accesses using
+ * TCF0.
+ * However futex.h code uses exclusives which would be executed as
+ * EL1, this can potentially cause a tag check fault even if the
+ * user disables TCF0.
+ *
+ * To address the problem we set the PSTATE.TCO bit in uaccess_enable()
+ * and reset it in uaccess_disable().
+ *
+ * The Tag check override (TCO) bit disables temporarily the tag checking
+ * preventing the issue.
+ */
 static inline void uaccess_disable(void)
 {
+	asm volatile(ALTERNATIVE("nop", SET_PSTATE_TCO(0),
+				 ARM64_MTE, CONFIG_KASAN_HW_TAGS));
+
 	__uaccess_disable(ARM64_HAS_PAN);
 }
 
 static inline void uaccess_enable(void)
 {
+	asm volatile(ALTERNATIVE("nop", SET_PSTATE_TCO(1),
+				 ARM64_MTE, CONFIG_KASAN_HW_TAGS));
+
 	__uaccess_enable(ARM64_HAS_PAN);
 }
This look fine.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
index a3bd189602df..d110f382dacf 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
@@ -33,6 +33,7 @@
 #include <asm/debug-monitors.h>
 #include <asm/esr.h>
 #include <asm/kprobes.h>
+#include <asm/mte.h>
 #include <asm/processor.h>
 #include <asm/sysreg.h>
 #include <asm/system_misc.h>
@@ -294,6 +295,11 @@ static void die_kernel_fault(const char *msg, unsigned long addr,
 	do_exit(SIGKILL);
 }
 
+static void report_tag_fault(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
+			     struct pt_regs *regs)
+{
+}
Do we need to introduce report_tag_fault() in this patch? It's fine but
add a note in the commit log that it will be populated in a subsequent
patch.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+
 static void __do_kernel_fault(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
 			      struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
@@ -641,10 +647,40 @@ static int do_sea(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr, struct pt_regs *regs)
 	return 0;
 }
 
+static void do_tag_recovery(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
+			   struct pt_regs *regs)
+{
+	static bool reported = false;
+
+	if (!READ_ONCE(reported)) {
+		report_tag_fault(addr, esr, regs);
+		WRITE_ONCE(reported, true);
+	}
I don't mind the READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE here but not sure what they help
with.

-- 
Catalin

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help