[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1528401060.5265.4.camel@2b52.sc.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2018 12:51:00 -0700
From: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@...tuozzo.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
"Shanbhogue, Vedvyas" <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
mike.kravetz@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] x86/cet: Signal handling for shadow stack
On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 20:58 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 06/07/2018 08:30 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 7:41 AM Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Set and restore shadow stack pointer for signals.
> >
> > How does this interact with siglongjmp()?
>
> We plan to use some unused signal mask bits in the jump buffer (we have
> a lot of those in glibc for some reason) to store the shadow stack pointer.
>
> > This patch makes me extremely nervous due to the possibility of ABI
> > issues and CRIU breakage.
> >
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/sigcontext.h b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/sigcontext.h
> >> index 844d60eb1882..6c8997a0156a 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/sigcontext.h
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/sigcontext.h
> >> @@ -230,6 +230,7 @@ struct sigcontext_32 {
> >> __u32 fpstate; /* Zero when no FPU/extended context */
> >> __u32 oldmask;
> >> __u32 cr2;
> >> + __u32 ssp;
> >> };
> >>
> >> /*
> >> @@ -262,6 +263,7 @@ struct sigcontext_64 {
> >> __u64 trapno;
> >> __u64 oldmask;
> >> __u64 cr2;
> >> + __u64 ssp;
> >>
> >> /*
> >> * fpstate is really (struct _fpstate *) or (struct _xstate *)
> >> @@ -320,6 +322,7 @@ struct sigcontext {
> >> struct _fpstate __user *fpstate;
> >> __u32 oldmask;
> >> __u32 cr2;
> >> + __u32 ssp;
> >
> > Is it actually okay to modify these structures like this? They're
> > part of the user ABI, and I don't know whether any user code relies on
> > the size being constant.
>
> Probably not. Historically, these things have been tacked at the end of
> the floating point state, see struct _xstate:
>
> /* New processor state extensions go here: */
>
> However, I'm not sure if this is really ideal because I doubt that
> everyone who needs the shadow stack pointer also wants to sacrifice
> space for the AVX-512 save area (which is already a backwards
> compatibility hazard). Other architectures have variable offsets and
> some TLV-style setup here.
>
> Thanks,
> Florian
I will move 'ssp' to _xstate for now, and look for other ways.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists