Le Lundi, Novembre 02, 2020 09:08 CET, François Legal via Xenomai <[email protected]> a écrit:
> Le Samedi, Octobre 31, 2020 17:48 CET, Philippe Gerum <[email protected]> a > écrit: > > > > > François Legal <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > Le Vendredi, Octobre 16, 2020 18:24 CEST, Philippe Gerum > > > <[email protected]> a écrit: > > > > > >> > > >> François Legal <[email protected]> writes: > > >> > > >> > Le Vendredi, Octobre 16, 2020 14:03 CEST, Philippe Gerum > > >> > <[email protected]> a écrit: > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> François Legal <[email protected]> writes: > > >> >> > > >> >> > Le Vendredi, Octobre 16, 2020 10:59 CEST, Philippe Gerum > > >> >> > <[email protected]> a écrit: > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> François Legal <[email protected]> writes: > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Le Mercredi, Octobre 14, 2020 16:16 CEST, Greg Gallagher > > >> >> >> > <[email protected]> a écrit: > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 5:37 AM Jan Kiszka > > >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > On 14.10.20 10:43, François Legal via Xenomai wrote: > > >> >> >> >> > > Anybody can help on this ? > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > I'm unfortunately not familiar with the armv7 details of > > >> >> >> >> > copy-from-user, > > >> >> >> >> > not too speak of how spectre contributed to it. Greg, > > >> >> >> >> > Philippe, did you > > >> >> >> >> > come across this already? > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > Jan > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> I'll take a look tonight but I haven't hit this in my testing. > > >> >> >> >> This > > >> >> >> >> was found on 4.4? Have you tried the 4.19 kernels? > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> -Greg > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > So I tried the same case on 4.19.121, with the same result, and > > >> >> >> > I guess for the same reason. > > >> >> >> > Could anybody explain why, on ARMv7, we need to copy the message > > >> >> >> > header at the syscall entry, and not let the xxxmsg routine do > > >> >> >> > it on its own ? > > >> >> >> > Also, I could not find how those COBALT_SYSCALL32emu logic work. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> There is no way an armv7 system would run the sys32emu code in > > >> >> >> Cobalt. This code path is specific to architectures which support > > >> >> >> mixed > > >> >> >> ABI models. Only Cobalt/x86 supports this so far, issuing x86_32 > > >> >> >> syscalls to an x86_64 kernel. You may want to check > > >> >> >> CONFIG_XENO_ARCH_SYS3264, it is set to "def_bool n" in the Kconfig > > >> >> >> stuff. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Maybe I don't use the right terms here, but what I can see from the > > >> >> > code is (in linux tree kernel/xenomai/posix/syscall32.c) > > >> >> > COBALT_SYSCALL32emu(sendmsg, handover, > > >> >> > (int fd, struct compat_msghdr __user *umsg, int > > >> >> > flags)) > > >> >> > { > > >> >> > struct user_msghdr m; > > >> >> > int ret; > > >> >> > > > >> >> > ret = sys32_get_msghdr(&m, umsg); > > >> >> > > > >> >> > return ret ?: rtdm_fd_sendmsg(fd, &m, flags); > > >> >> > } > > >> >> > > > >> >> > And the problem regarding SPECTRE mitigation is with the "ret = > > >> >> > sys32_get_msghdr(&m, umsg);" line, as af_packet (in my case, but I > > >> >> > believe the other handlers should do the same) will also call> >> > > >> >> > >> > copy_from_user on the "msghdr" argument, and the SPECTRE > > >> >> > mitigation > > >> >> > will check that this pointer is in the userland MM area. > > >> >> > > >> >> There is indeed a problem with this code passing the kernel memory > > >> >> address of a bounce buffer to RTDM handlers which would expect __user > > >> >> tagged memory instead. This ends up confusing any low-level > > >> >> copy_to/from_user routine which includes attack > > >> >> mitigation. rtnet_get_arg() does call such routine under the hood. > > >> >> This > > >> >> is something some Xenomai contributor may want to address. > > >> >> > > >> >> But, again, this sys32emu code cannot run for armv7 under the current > > >> >> stock implementation. So what we are discussing is purely hypothetical > > >> >> at this stage for this architecture, and should definitely never > > >> >> happen > > >> >> by construction if you are running armv7 (which does not make the > > >> >> original issue go away, that is granted). > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > I'm not sure I quite understand that point. The code reproduced above > > >> > is well built in the kernel. Are you saying this code is not called > > >> > whenever userland calls sendmsg on an rt socket ? Am I looking in the > > >> > wrong direction ? In that case, where should I be looking ? I mean, I > > >> > tracked the whole thing with a JTAG debugger, and it seemed to me that > > >> > this was what was really happening, with the SPECTRE code setting the > > >> > pointer to 0 which was later being caught by arm_copy_from_user. > > >> > > > >> > > >> How could syscall32.c and compat.c be built into the kernel with > > >> CONFIG_XENO_ARCH_SYS3264 forcibly unset in the Kconfig, which is always > > >> the case when building for anything else than x86? > > >> > > >> Checking kernel/cobalt/posix/Makefile may help in understanding why it > > >> is simply not possible. arm_copy_from_user is built in, no question, > > >> and your analysis regarding SVC context memory being spuriously fed into > > >> arm_copy_from_user is likely right. > > >> > > >> But the sys32 wrappers are neither for armv7, armv8 nor ppc32. So yes, > > >> you are certainly following the wrong path when looking at > > >> kernel/cobalt/posix/syscall32.c. This 32-to-64bit syscall support is NOT > > >> built into a kernel targeting armv7, at least when it comes to the> >> > > >> vanilla Xenomai code. > > >> > > >> You may want to double-check which call site actually invokes > > >> arm_copy_from_user. > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Philippe. > > > > > > Thanks Philippe for pointing me in the right direction. > > > So, if I'm correct this time, the problem is about the same, but in > > > posix/io.c. > > > In > > > > > > COBALT_SYSCALL(sendmsg, handover, > > > (int fd, struct user_msghdr __user *umsg, int flags))> > { > > > struct user_msghdr m; > > > int ret; > > > > > > ret = cobalt_copy_from_user(&m, umsg, sizeof(m)); > > > > > > return ret ?: rtdm_fd_sendmsg(fd, &m, flags); > > > } > > > > > > Same thing, the user_msghdr is allocated on the SVC stack, then copied > > > from user, then handed over to the sendmsg handling function pertaining > > > to that fd, and whenever that handling function call copy_from_user for > > > the same user_msghdr pointer, it triggers the SPECTRE mitigation > > > protection. > > > > > > What is still unclear to me is why this user_msghdr struct is copied > > > here, and not left to the handling function, as in the sendmmsg syscalls, > > > the struct mmsghdr is not copied from user in syscall entry. > > > > > > > Unlike sendmsg(), sendmmsg() has to deal with 32bit compat mode, so > > __rtdm_fd_sendmmsg() receives a couple of helpers along with the user > > pointer in order to do the right thing, depending on the 32/64 syscall > > entry. sendmsg() was implemented much earlier too, when SPECTRE > > mitigation was not there: passing SVC memory to copy_from/to_user> services > > was still wrong, but went unnoticed. > > > > -- > > Philippe. > > Alright, so shall I submit a patch removing those copy_from/to_user calls at > system call entry in sendmsg and recvmsg ? > Is this the way to go ? > > Thanks > > François > > So for the records, I tried to patch posix/io.c to remove the copy_to/from_user from there to try to avoid the SPECTRE problem, and while that seem to work perfectly well for the rt_packet endpoint, I come across another problem in xddp sockets which do expect the struct user_msghdr to be present in kernel space. So I still wonder which is the way to go ? Removing the copy_from/to_user in posix/io.c and modifying xddp (and possibly other protocols relying on that) to to add the copy_to/from_user there, or modify only af_packet (and possibly/probably all sockets type in RTNET) ? Thanks François
