[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrV1GG5rq_kwxkS-o3x8Ldr72ThdYgkJKQ9cx9Q63SxgTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 16:01:23 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: "H. J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>,
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>,
"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 06/10] x86/cet: Add arch_prctl functions for shadow stack
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 3:02 PM H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:33 PM Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 11:48 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 7:41 AM Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > The following operations are provided.
> >> > >
> >> > > ARCH_CET_STATUS:
> >> > > return the current CET status
> >> > >
> >> > > ARCH_CET_DISABLE:
> >> > > disable CET features
> >> > >
> >> > > ARCH_CET_LOCK:
> >> > > lock out CET features
> >> > >
> >> > > ARCH_CET_EXEC:
> >> > > set CET features for exec()
> >> > >
> >> > > ARCH_CET_ALLOC_SHSTK:
> >> > > allocate a new shadow stack
> >> > >
> >> > > ARCH_CET_PUSH_SHSTK:
> >> > > put a return address on shadow stack
> >> > >
> >> > > ARCH_CET_ALLOC_SHSTK and ARCH_CET_PUSH_SHSTK are intended only for
> >> > > the implementation of GLIBC ucontext related APIs.
> >> >
> >> > Please document exactly what these all do and why. I don't understand
> >> > what purpose ARCH_CET_LOCK and ARCH_CET_EXEC serve. CET is opt in for
> >> > each ELF program, so I think there should be no need for a magic
> >> > override.
> >>
> >> CET is initially enabled if the loader has CET capability. Then the
> >> loader decides if the application can run with CET. If the application
> >> cannot run with CET (e.g. a dependent library does not have CET), then
> >> the loader turns off CET before passing to the application. When the
> >> loader is done, it locks out CET and the feature cannot be turned off
> >> anymore until the next exec() call.
> >
> > Why is the lockout necessary? If user code enables CET and tries to
> > run code that doesn't support CET, it will crash. I don't see why we
> > need special code in the kernel to prevent a user program from calling
> > arch_prctl() and crashing itself. There are already plenty of ways to
> > do that :)
>
> On CET enabled machine, not all programs nor shared libraries are
> CET enabled. But since ld.so is CET enabled, all programs start
> as CET enabled. ld.so will disable CET if a program or any of its shared
> libraries aren't CET enabled. ld.so will lock up CET once it is done CET
> checking so that CET can't no longer be disabled afterwards.
Yeah, I got that. No one has explained *why*.
(Also, shouldn't the vDSO itself be marked as supporting CET?)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists