linux-kernel - [PATCH 9/9] x86, pkeys, selftests: add PROT

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20180323180918.A4C22A10@viggo.jf.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:09:18 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        linuxram@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, dave.hansen@...el.com,
        mpe@...erman.id.au, mingo@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        shuah@...nel.org
Subject: [PATCH 9/9] x86, pkeys, selftests: add PROT_EXEC test


From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>

Under the covers, implement executable-only memory with
protection keys when userspace calls mprotect(PROT_EXEC).

But, we did not have a selftest for that.  Now we do.

Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Michael Ellermen <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
---

 b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/protection_keys.c |   51 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff -puN tools/testing/selftests/x86/protection_keys.c~pkeys-selftests-prot_exec tools/testing/selftests/x86/protection_keys.c
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/protection_keys.c~pkeys-selftests-prot_exec	2018-03-23 10:46:03.976813119 -0700
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/protection_keys.c	2018-03-23 10:46:03.980813119 -0700
@@ -930,10 +930,10 @@ void expected_pk_fault(int pkey)
 	dprintf2("%s(%d): last_si_pkey: %d\n", __func__, pkey, last_si_pkey);
 	pkey_assert(last_pkru_faults + 1 == pkru_faults);
 
-       /*
-	* For exec-only memory, we do not know the pkey in
-	* advance, so skip this check.
-	*/
+	/*
+	 * For exec-only memory, we do not know the pkey in
+	 * advance, so skip this check.
+	 */
 	if (pkey != UNKNOWN_PKEY)
 		pkey_assert(last_si_pkey == pkey);
 
@@ -1335,6 +1335,49 @@ void test_executing_on_unreadable_memory
 	expected_pk_fault(pkey);
 }
 
+void test_implicit_mprotect_exec_only_memory(int *ptr, u16 pkey)
+{
+	void *p1;
+	int scratch;
+	int ptr_contents;
+	int ret;
+
+	dprintf1("%s() start\n", __func__);
+
+	p1 = get_pointer_to_instructions();
+	lots_o_noops_around_write(&scratch);
+	ptr_contents = read_ptr(p1);
+	dprintf2("ptr (%p) contents@%d: %x\n", p1, __LINE__, ptr_contents);
+
+	/* Use a *normal* mprotect(), not mprotect_pkey(): */
+	ret = mprotect(p1, PAGE_SIZE, PROT_EXEC);
+	pkey_assert(!ret);
+
+	dprintf2("pkru: %x\n", rdpkru());
+
+	/* Make sure this is an *instruction* fault */
+	madvise(p1, PAGE_SIZE, MADV_DONTNEED);
+	lots_o_noops_around_write(&scratch);
+	do_not_expect_pk_fault();
+	ptr_contents = read_ptr(p1);
+	dprintf2("ptr (%p) contents@%d: %x\n", p1, __LINE__, ptr_contents);
+	expected_pk_fault(UNKNOWN_PKEY);
+
+	/*
+	 * Put the memory back to non-PROT_EXEC.  Should clear the
+	 * exec-only pkey off the VMA and allow it to be readable
+	 * again.  Go to PROT_NONE first to check for a kernel bug
+	 * that did not clear the pkey when doing PROT_NONE.
+	 */
+	ret = mprotect(p1, PAGE_SIZE, PROT_NONE);
+	pkey_assert(!ret);
+
+	ret = mprotect(p1, PAGE_SIZE, PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC);
+	pkey_assert(!ret);
+	ptr_contents = read_ptr(p1);
+	do_not_expect_pk_fault();
+}
+
 void test_mprotect_pkey_on_unsupported_cpu(int *ptr, u16 pkey)
 {
 	int size = PAGE_SIZE;
_