On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 6:01 PM Dave Martin <dave.mar...@arm.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 01:50:57PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > arm64 has a feature called Top Byte Ignore, which allows to embed pointer
> > tags into the top byte of each pointer. Userspace programs (such as
> > HWASan, a memory debugging tool [1]) might use this feature and pass
> > tagged user pointers to the kernel through syscalls or other interfaces.
> >
> > Right now the kernel is already able to handle user faults with tagged
> > pointers, due to these patches:
> >
> > 1. 81cddd65 ("arm64: traps: fix userspace cache maintenance emulation on a
> >              tagged pointer")
> > 2. 7dcd9dd8 ("arm64: hw_breakpoint: fix watchpoint matching for tagged
> >               pointers")
> > 3. 276e9327 ("arm64: entry: improve data abort handling of tagged
> >               pointers")
> >
> > When passing tagged pointers to syscalls, there's a special case of such a
> > pointer being passed to one of the memory syscalls (mmap, mprotect, etc.).
> > These syscalls don't do memory accesses but rather deal with memory
> > ranges, hence an untagged pointer is better suited.
> >
> > This patchset extends tagged pointer support to non-memory syscalls. This
> > is done by reusing the untagged_addr macro to untag user pointers when the
> > kernel performs pointer checking to find out whether the pointer comes
> > from userspace (most notably in access_ok). The untagging is done only
> > when the pointer is being checked, the tag is preserved as the pointer
> > makes its way through the kernel.
> >
> > One of the alternative approaches to untagging that was considered is to
> > completely strip the pointer tag as the pointer enters the kernel with
> > some kind of a syscall wrapper, but that won't work with the countless
> > number of different ioctl calls. With this approach we would need a custom
> > wrapper for each ioctl variation, which doesn't seem practical.
> >
> > The following testing approaches has been taken to find potential issues
> > with user pointer untagging:
> >
> > 1. Static testing (with sparse [2] 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.
> >
> > 2. Dynamic testing: adding BUG_ON(has_tag(addr)) to find_vma() and running
> >    a modified syzkaller version that passes tagged pointers to the kernel.
> >
> > Based on the results of the testing the requried patches have been added
> > to the patchset.
> >
> > This patchset has been merged into the Pixel 2 kernel tree and is now
> > being used to enable testing of Pixel 2 phones with HWASan.

Hi, Dave,

> Do you have an idea of how much of the user/kernel interface is covered
> by this workload?

Not really. I don't even know what kind of measurements can be used to
obtain this estimate. But Pixel 2 kernel with these patches + Android
runtime instrumented with HWASan works.

> > This patchset is a prerequisite for ARM's memory tagging hardware feature
> > support [3].
> It looks like there's been a lot of progress made here towards smoking
> out most of the sites in the kernel where pointers need to be untagged.
> However, I do think that we need a clear policy for how existing kernel
> interfaces are to be interpreted in the presence of tagged pointers.
> Unless we have that nailed down, we are likely to be able to make only
> vague guarantees to userspace about what works, and the ongoing risk
> of ABI regressions and inconsistencies seems high.
> I don't really see how we can advertise a full system interface if we
> know some subset of it doesn't work for foreseeable userspace
> environments.  I feel that presenting the current changes as an ABI
> relaxation may be a recipe for future problems, since the forwards
> compatibility guarantees we're able to make today are few and rather
> vague.
> Can we define an opt-in for tagged-pointer userspace, that rejects all
> syscalls that we haven't checked and whitelisted (or that are
> uncheckable like ioctl)?  This reflects the reality that we don't have
> a regular userspace environment in which standards-compliant software
> that uses address tags in a reasonable way will just work.
> It might be feasible to promote this to be enabled by default later on,
> if it becomes sufficiently complete.
> In the meantime, I think we really need to nail down the kernel's
> policies on
>  * in the default configuration (without opt-in), is the presence of
> non-address bits in pointers exchanged with the kernel simply
> considered broken?  (Even with this series, the de factor answer
> generally seems to be "yes", although many specific things will now
> work fine)
>  * if not, how do we tighten syscall / interface specifications to
> describe what happens with pointers containing non-address bits, while
> keeping the existing behaviour for untagged pointers?
> We would want a general recipe that gives clear guidance on what
> userspace should expect an arbitrarily chosen syscall to do with its
> pointers, without having to enumerate each and every case.
> To be sustainable, we would also need to solve that in a way that
> doesn't need to be reintented per-arch.

As I understand your main concern is userspace/kernel ABI changes
these patches introduce. This concern was already pointed out by
Catalin, and working out the details is still in progress.

> There may already be some background on these topics -- can you throw me
> a link if so?

I don't have a single link, I would suggest to look at the comments
for all the previous versions of this patchset. I see you saw the
pathset by Vincenzo, it also has some information about this.

> Cheers
> ---Dave


Reply via email to