[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181003195702.GF32759@asgard.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 21:57:06 +0200
From: Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>
To: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Vedvyas Shanbhogue <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 3/9] x86/cet/ibt: Add IBT legacy code bitmap
allocation function
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 08:05:47AM -0700, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> Indirect branch tracking provides an optional legacy code bitmap
> that indicates locations of non-IBT compatible code. When set,
> each bit in the bitmap represents a page in the linear address is
> legacy code.
>
> We allocate the bitmap only when the application requests it.
> Most applications do not need the bitmap.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/cet.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cet.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cet.c
> index 6adfe795d692..a65d9745af08 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cet.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cet.c
> @@ -314,3 +314,48 @@ void cet_disable_ibt(void)
> wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_U_CET, r);
> current->thread.cet.ibt_enabled = 0;
> }
> +
> +int cet_setup_ibt_bitmap(void)
> +{
> + u64 r;
> + unsigned long bitmap;
> + unsigned long size;
> +
> + if (!cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_IBT))
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
> + if (!current->thread.cet.ibt_bitmap_addr) {
> + /*
> + * Calculate size and put in thread header.
> + * may_expand_vm() needs this information.
> + */
> + size = TASK_SIZE / PAGE_SIZE / BITS_PER_BYTE;
TASK_SIZE_MAX is likely needed here, as an application can easily switch
between long an 32-bit protected mode. And then the case of a CPU that
doesn't support 5LPT.
> + current->thread.cet.ibt_bitmap_size = size;
> + bitmap = do_mmap_locked(0, size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
> + MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE,
> + VM_DONTDUMP);
> +
> + if (bitmap >= TASK_SIZE) {
Shouldn't bitmap be unmapped here?
> + current->thread.cet.ibt_bitmap_size = 0;
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + }
> +
> + current->thread.cet.ibt_bitmap_addr = bitmap;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * Lower bits of MSR_IA32_CET_LEG_IW_EN are for IBT
> + * settings. Clear lower bits even bitmap is already
> + * page-aligned.
> + */
> + bitmap = current->thread.cet.ibt_bitmap_addr;
> + bitmap &= PAGE_MASK;
In a hypothetical situation of bitmap & PAGE_MASK < bitmap that would lead
to bitmap pointing to unmapped memory. A check that bitmap is sane would
probably be better.
> +
> + /*
> + * Turn on IBT legacy bitmap.
> + */
> + rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_U_CET, r);
> + r |= (MSR_IA32_CET_LEG_IW_EN | bitmap);
> + wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_U_CET, r);
> + return 0;
> +}
> --
> 2.17.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists