Re: [PATCH v4 18/26] arm64: vdso32: Replace TASK_SIZE_32 check in vgettimeofday

[Vincenzo Frascino]

Hi Catalin,

On 3/18/20 6:36 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 04:14:26PM +0000, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
>> On 3/17/20 5:48 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 04:40:48PM +0000, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
>>>> On 3/17/20 3:50 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 03:04:01PM +0000, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/17/20 2:38 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 12:22:12PM +0000, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can TASK_SIZE > UINTPTR_MAX on an arm64 system?
>>>>>
>>>>> TASK_SIZE yes on arm64 but not TASK_SIZE_32. I was asking about the
>>>>> arm32 check where TASK_SIZE < UINTPTR_MAX. How does the vdsotest return
>>>>> -EFAULT on arm32? Which code path causes this in the user vdso code?
> [...]
>>> So clock_gettime() on arm32 always falls back to the syscall?
>>
>> This seems not what you asked, and I think I answered accordingly. Anyway, in
>> the case of arm32 the error code path is handled via syscall fallback.
>>
>> Look at the code below as an example (I am using getres because I know this
>> email will be already too long, and I do not want to add pointless code, but the
>> concept is the same for gettime and the others):
>>
>> static __maybe_unused
>> int __cvdso_clock_getres(clockid_t clock, struct __kernel_timespec *res)
>> {
>> 	int ret = __cvdso_clock_getres_common(clock, res);
>>
>> 	if (unlikely(ret))
>> 		return clock_getres_fallback(clock, res);
>> 	return 0;
>> }
>>
>> When the return code of the "vdso" internal function returns an error the system
>> call is triggered.
> 
> But when __cvdso_clock_getres_common() does *not* return an error, it
> means that it handled the clock_getres() call without a fallback to the
> syscall. I assume this is possible on arm32. When the clock_getres() is
> handled directly (not as a syscall), why doesn't arm32 need the same
> (res >= TASK_SIZE) check?
> 

Ok, I see what you mean.

It does not need to differ when __cvdso_clock_getres_common() does *not* return
an error, we can move the checks in the fallback and leave the vdso code the
same. The reason why I put the checks at the beginning of vdso code is because
since I know such a condition it is going to fail I prefer to bailout
immediately when it is detected instead of going through a bus error and a
syscall before I can bailout.

>> In general arm32 has been ported to the unified vDSO library hence it has a
>> proper implementation on par with all the other architectures supported by the
>> unified library.
> 
> And that's what I do not fully understand. When the call doesn't fall
> back to a syscall, why does arm32 and arm64 compat need to differ in the
> implementation? I may be missing something here.
> 

I think I replied above, please let me know if this is not the case.

>>>>> My guess is that on arm32 it only fails with -EFAULT in the syscall
>>>>> fallback path since a copy_to_user() would fail the access_ok() check.
>>>>> Does it always take the fallback path if ts > TASK_SIZE?
>>>>
>>>> Correct, it goes via fallback. The return codes for these syscalls are specified
>>>> by the ABI [1]. Then I agree with you the way on which arm32 achieves it should
>>>> be via access_ok() check.
>>>
>>> "it should be" or "it is" on arm32?
> [...]
>> SYSCALL_DEFINE2(clock_gettime, const clockid_t, which_clock,
>> 		struct __kernel_timespec __user *, tp)
> [...]
>> This is the syscall on which we fallback when the "vdso" internal function
>> returns an error. The behavior of the vdso has to be exactly the same of the
>> syscall otherwise we end up in an ABI breakage.
> 
> I agree. I just don't understand why on arm32 the vdso code doesn't need
> to check for tp >= TASK_SIZE while the arm64 compat one does when it
> does *not* fall back to a syscall. I understand the syscall fallback
> case, that's caused by how we handle access_ok(), but this doesn't
> explain the vdso-only case.
> 

It is mainly a design choice based on what I explained above but I am open to
suggestions if you have a better way to proceed.

[...]

> 
> Furthermore, my assumption is that __cvdso_clock_getres_common() should
> handle this case already and we don't need it in the arch vdso code.
> 

This is not the point I was trying to make, what I was trying to analyze here
was the check compared to why the test verifies it, not the correctness of the
check itself. Anyway, according to me, it is not worthed continuing to discuss
it further since as of my previous email I already said that I am going to
remove the check entirely because of the fix below.

>>> You also don't explain why __cvdso_clock_getres_time32() doesn't already
>>> detect an invalid clk_id on arm64 compat (but does it on arm32).
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for asking to me this question, if I would not have spent the day trying
>> to explain it, I would not have found a bug in the getres() fallback:
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/unistd.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/unistd.h
>> index 1dd22da1c3a9..803039d504de 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/unistd.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/unistd.h
>> @@ -25,8 +25,8 @@
>>  #define __NR_compat_gettimeofday       78
>>  #define __NR_compat_sigreturn          119
>>  #define __NR_compat_rt_sigreturn       173
>> -#define __NR_compat_clock_getres       247
>>  #define __NR_compat_clock_gettime      263
>> +#define __NR_compat_clock_getres       264
>>  #define __NR_compat_clock_gettime64    403
>>  #define __NR_compat_clock_getres_time64        406
>>
>> In particular compat getres is mis-numbered and that is what causes the issue.
>>
>> I am going to add a patch to my v5 that addresses the issue (or probably a
>> separate one and cc stable since it fixes a bug) and in this patch I will remove
>> the check on VALID_CLOCK_ID.
> 
> Please send this as a separate patch that should be merged as a fix, cc
> stable.
> 

Ok, I will prepare a fix today.

>> I hope that this long email helps you to have a clearer picture of what is going
>> on. Please let me know if there is still something missing.
> 
> Not entirely. Sorry.
> 

Let's try again :)

-- 
Regards,
Vincenzo