Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] powerpc/fault: Avoid heavy search_exception_tables() verification | From | "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <> | Date | Tue, 8 Dec 2020 18:30:49 +0530 |
| |
On 12/8/20 2:07 PM, Christophe Leroy wrote: > search_exception_tables() is an heavy operation, we have to avoid it. > When KUAP is selected, we'll know the fault has been blocked by KUAP. > Otherwise, it behaves just as if the address was already in the TLBs > and no fault was generated. > > Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> > Reviewed-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> > --- > v3: rebased > v2: Squashed with the preceeding patch which was re-ordering tests that get removed in this patch. > --- > arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c | 23 +++++++---------------- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c > index 3fcd34c28e10..1770b41e4730 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c > @@ -210,28 +210,19 @@ static bool bad_kernel_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code, > return true; > } > > - if (!is_exec && address < TASK_SIZE && (error_code & (DSISR_PROTFAULT | DSISR_KEYFAULT)) && > - !search_exception_tables(regs->nip)) { > - pr_crit_ratelimited("Kernel attempted to access user page (%lx) - exploit attempt? (uid: %d)\n", > - address, > - from_kuid(&init_user_ns, current_uid())); > - } > - > // Kernel fault on kernel address is bad > if (address >= TASK_SIZE) > return true; > > - // Fault on user outside of certain regions (eg. copy_tofrom_user()) is bad > - if (!search_exception_tables(regs->nip)) > - return true; > - > - // Read/write fault in a valid region (the exception table search passed > - // above), but blocked by KUAP is bad, it can never succeed. > - if (bad_kuap_fault(regs, address, is_write)) > + // Read/write fault blocked by KUAP is bad, it can never succeed. > + if (bad_kuap_fault(regs, address, is_write)) { > + pr_crit_ratelimited("Kernel attempted to %s user page (%lx) - exploit attempt? (uid: %d)\n", > + is_write ? "write" : "read", address, > + from_kuid(&init_user_ns, current_uid())); > return true; > + }
Should we update bad_kuap_fault to check for !is_kernel_addr() and error_code & (DSISIR_PROT_FAULT | DSISIR_KEYFAULT). I am wondering whether we can take another fault w.r.t kernel address/user address and end up reporting that as KUAP fault?
> > - // What's left? Kernel fault on user in well defined regions (extable > - // matched), and allowed by KUAP in the faulting context. > + // What's left? Kernel fault on user and allowed by KUAP in the faulting context. > return false; > } > >
-aneesh
| |