linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 6/9] x86/cet/ibt: Add arch

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Thu, 4 Oct 2018 09:12:04 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
Cc:     Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>,
        Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.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>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        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>,
        "Shanbhogue, Vedvyas" <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>,
        libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
        "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 6/9] x86/cet/ibt: Add arch_prctl functions for IBT

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 9:08 AM Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de> wrote:
>
> * Yu-cheng Yu:
>
> > On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 15:28 +0200, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 08:05:50AM -0700, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> >> > Update ARCH_CET_STATUS and ARCH_CET_DISABLE to include Indirect
> >> > Branch Tracking features.
> >> >
> >> > Introduce:
> >> >
> >> > arch_prctl(ARCH_CET_LEGACY_BITMAP, unsigned long *addr)
> >> >     Enable the Indirect Branch Tracking legacy code bitmap.
> >> >
> >> >     The parameter 'addr' is a pointer to a user buffer.
> >> >     On returning to the caller, the kernel fills the following:
> >> >
> >> >     *addr = IBT bitmap base address
> >> >     *(addr + 1) = IBT bitmap size
> >>
> >> Again, some structure with a size field would be better from
> >> UAPI/extensibility standpoint.
> >>
> >> One additional point: "size" in the structure from kernel should have
> >> structure size expected by kernel, and at least providing there "0" from
> >> user space shouldn't lead to failure (in fact, it is possible to provide
> >> structure size back to userspace even if buffer is too small, along
> >> with error).
> >
> > This has been in GLIBC v2.28.  We cannot change it anymore.
>
> In theory, you could, if you change the ARCH_CET_LEGACY_BITMAP
> constant, so that glibc will not use the different arch_prctl
> operation.  We could backport the change into the glibc 2.28 dynamic
> linker, so that existing binaries will start using CET again.  Then
> only statically linked binaries will be impacted.
>
> It's definitely not ideal, but it's doable if the interface is
> terminally broken or otherwise unacceptable.  But to me it looks like
> this threshold isn't reached here.

I tend to agree.

But I do think there's a real problem that should be fixed and won't
affect ABI: the *name* of the prctl is pretty bad.  I read the test
several times trying to decide if you meant
ARCH_GET_CET_LEGACY_BITMAP?  But you don't.

Maybe name it ARCH_CET_CREATE_LEGACY_BITMAP?  And explicitly document
what it does if legacy bitmap already exists?

--Andy